Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE KING

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

I have received your Address praying that the Regulation 76 of the Defence (General)  Regulations, 1939, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance)  Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.

I will give directions accordingly.

EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS)

I have received your Address praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions)  Act, 1946, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance)  Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.

I will give directions accordingly.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

I have received your Address praying that the National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales (Membership)  Order, 1949, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has any statement to make about the discussions which he recently had with visiting Southern Rhodesian Ministers about the possibility of some closer form of political association of the Central African Territories, of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasa-land.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): As the answer is long, I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later —

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the House is, no doubt, aware, a meeting was held at Victoria Falls in February last, as a result of initiatives taken locally, to discuss the possibility of political federation between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was attended by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, together with members of the European Communities from that territory and from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
No formal report of the proceedings has been published, but there were Press reports that the meeting had agreed on the principle of Federation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies took the opportunity of his visit to Central Africa in April, 1949, to discuss the subject; and he and I have recently had informal exploratory talks about it with the Hon. T. M. W. Beadle, the Southern Rhodesian Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs, during his recent visit to this country.
In the course of a full and frank exchange of views with Mr. Beadle, my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom believe that there is a wide field of Government activity in which closer co-operation between the three Territories is required. It was with this purpose that the Central African Council was set up in 1945, and His


Majesty's Government consider that valuable practical results have been obtained, at modest cost, by the Council. They believe that the field of co-operation can with advantage be further extended. The Government of Southern Rhodesia, are understood to hold the view that the Central African Council's work is disappointing in relation to its cost, and that further progress cannot be made without some form of closer political association.
My right hon. Friend and I have pointed out that His Majesty's Government are bound to take into account the difficulties inherent in political federation between these three territories, in particular, the obligations of the United Kingdom Government to the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the differing constitutional status of the three territories, and the present objection of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to political integration. I may add that these are matters on which we shall wish to obtain the views of the Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Governments, and we shall also wish to consider the report of the recent debate in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council.
We have suggested to Mr. Beadle that the Government of Southern Rhodesia should re-examine the situation in the light of the difficulties to which I have referred in regard to political federation; should also consider further the methods available for closer economic co-operation, either by means of the Central African Council or otherwise, and should let us have a further statement of their views. We shall, of course, be ready to discuss the matter further with them, and with representatives of the Governments and Legislative Councils of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, whenever they desire.
I should add that Mr. Beadle has seen the terms of this reply, and he agrees that it represents the results of our recent talks.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, I assume that the Government do not dissent from the view expressed in 1939 by the Bledisloe Commission that the identity of interest of these three territories will lead sooner or later to political union. Secondly, is it agreed that the

Central African Council, which is a very important step on this road to unity, should be encouraged in every way, as well as any other practicable extension of the field of co-operation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As to the Bledisloe Report, I do not want to forecast the far future. I am now concerned with the steps which ought to be taken at present. With regard to the Central African Council, we certainly would desire to promote its efficiency if it can give good results, as we hope and believe it can.

Mr. Driberg: In so far as this would be a step towards self-government, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no constitutional change while there is still a risk that the status of the African peoples in these territories would be, under self-government, permanently inferior?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the answer which I have given shows that His Majesty's Government must regard it as one of their primary duties to take account of their obligations to the African population and to the wishes of the Africans.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the respective numbers of the white and native populations in the non-self-governing territories of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In round figures there are 29,000 Europeans and 1,700,000 Africans in Northern Rhodesia. In Nyasaland there are 2,500 Europeans and 2,300,000 Africans.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In- view of the speech made by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, reported in "The Times" about a week ago, can we be assured first that, in fact, His Majesty's Government have not snubbed the Government of Southern Rhodesia, and secondly, that the views of the Government of Southern Rhodesia upon this native problem have indeed been understood as well as examined by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope we have understood their views. In any case, we have asked them for a fuller statement of their views, and for their views on the difficulties which I enumerated this


afternoon. Mr, Beadle has assured me that they will be ready to give us that further statement.

Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no truth in the statement that Sir Godfrey Huggins made that there were differences in the United Kingdom Government on the subject? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that His Majesty's Government are united behind the view that the interests of the African peoples must be paramount?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the statement I have made this afternoon shows that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are united. I do not want to make any comment on what was said by Sir Godfrey Huggins.

Sir Ian Fraser: While desiring as much as any the advancement of the indigenous native peoples, may I ask will the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that if we must wait until the Africans are competent to take a full share in modern Government, then the great conception of a Dominion in the centre of Africa will be very long delayed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think I have made it plain that we think there is a large field of governmental activity in which co-operation could be advanced without political union, but we have promised to consider what is further said by the Government of Southern Rhodesia about political union.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Could my right hon. Friend give any further details of the cost of the Central African Council and the result of its work so far?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We think that the Central African Council has produced practical results in a large number of fields—broadcasting, meteorology, the tourist industry, African education, currency board, agriculture, forestry, veterinary science, civil aviation and other things. The cost is about £35,000 a year of which Southern Rhodesia pays half.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what directions it is envisaged that there will be closer

co-operation and further development of the work of this Central African Council?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In general economic policy, in scientific research, in co-operation for production and so on.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Staff (Election Candidates)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he inquires into the personal political beliefs of members of his Department who desire to stand as candidates at local authority elections; and if he will cease this inquisition into the private affairs of individuals on his staff.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Whilst inquiries whether prospective candidates are party or non-party have been made, prospective candidates have not been asked to disclose to which party they belong before granting or refusing permission to stand, nor are such inquiries allowed to be made. With consideration of the Masterman Report, I did inquire about the party affiliations of those to whom permission had been granted and whose elections were at that time in fact over. In one case the officer concerned refused the information, but there was no question of compelling this officer to disclose this information.

Timber Control (Softwood)

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now announce the date from which the timber trade will be allowed to resume the purchase in Scandinavia and elsewhere of softwood of suitable quality for the building trade and other requirements.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister recognise that so long as he continues the Timber Control and the centralised buying of timber we are losing the practical experience of timber importers who know what is really needed?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. Although plans are being made for the ultimate reversion of softwood to private purchasers I am satisfied that the time for doing that has not yet been reached.

Periodicals (Paper Supplies)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to fix a date at which the present restrictions on magazines and periodicals will be removed.

Mr. H. Wilson: As from 1st March next, existing magazines and periodicals will no longer be limited for their home sales to a percentage of their pre-war consumption of paper, but will be allowed to use all the paper they can obtain. The restrictions on new publications will also be withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be very generally welcomed?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will it now not be necessary for magazines to try to arrange for publication abroad, which has caused great inconvenience both to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and elsewhere?

Mr. Wilson: We shall certainly welcome all the efforts which they are able to make to export copies of what is produced, but there will now be no question of any necessity to publish abroad.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement cover newspaper*?

Mr. Wilson: It covers what it says, periodicals and magazines, not newspapers.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Will the restriction on the amount of paper permitted to be allocated to advertising be removed at the same time?

Mr. Wilson: I should require notice of that question.

Development Councils

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position regarding the proposal to set up a development council for the pottery industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: Following a meeting between my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, and both sides of the industry in Stoke-on-Trent on 7th November, I told the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation and the

National Society of Pottery Workers that I intended to publish shortly my proposals for a pottery development council.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of what is meant by "shortly"? This matter has been in hand for some weeks now.

Mr. Wilson: There were discussions for a long time before this decision was finally taken. I am sorry that I cannot at the moment say when we shall be able to publish my proposals.

Mr. William Shepherd: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman intends to force a development council on the industry, or has he secured the necessary agreement?

Mr. Wilson: No, I am sorry to say that the employers, having at one time been favourable to the idea of a development council, suddenly, when the infection spread on the subject of development councils, changed their minds.

Mr. McCorquodale: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that any such bodies are of real value to an industry only when they are entered into voluntarily by both sides?

Mr. Wilson: I am doubtful whether the other side would enter voluntarily into the kind of organisation which the employers have in mind.

Mr. Shepherd: Is this not one of the results of compulsion, which this side of the House warned the right hon. Gentleman about some time ago?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. A sudden decision on the part of employers in a number of industries to refuse to cooperate in the establishment of development councils faced me with the necessity of making a very difficult decision, and after a long period of negotiations and almost inexhaustible patience, I finally felt that I had to come to a decision about it.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend agree that although the party opposite warned him about this position, they did not at that time say that they would organise this obvious resistance?

Mr. Wilson: I have every reason to think that the opposition to development


councils was certainly not organised by the party opposite. The fact that it was organised and took on a political character is not, I think, in doubt.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals are under consideration for the setting up of development councils under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act; what progress has been achieved; and when it is expected that final decisions in respect of them may be expected.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Tuesday to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about development councils for the wool textile and clothing industries. I have dealt with the pottery negotiations in the answer I have just given my hon. Friend. In the hosiery and cutlery industries, proposals for development councils are under consideration, but I cannot yet say when final decisions in these cases will be taken.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that there is available in the best organised factories experience which should be available to the rest of the industry, and is there not also a wider public and a community interest to be taken into account apart from the employers' side?

Mr. Wilson: Yes. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said.

Sir William Darling: In view of the success which has attended voluntary cooperation of chambers of commerce and others with the Government, would it not be wise to continue still further with sweet reasonableness to try to get voluntary agreement about the establishment of development councils?

Mr. Wilson: Sweet reasonableness is one thing but sweet reasonableness for ever and ever towards people who are determined not to co-operate, is another. If we are to look for analogies, the great success achieved in the cotton industry should be a sufficient guide to what our policy should be.

Raw Silk (Imports)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recent increasing demand in hard currency areas for finished silk products,

he will increase the allowance of raw silk importations.

Mr. H. Wilson: Arrangements have already been made to give additional allocations of raw silk to manufacturers who will use it for the execution of orders from dollar and similar hard currency markets.

Babies Napkins

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the acute shortage of babies' diapers or material for making the same in the area of Harlow, Bishop's Stortford, Epping and Chingford; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) on 18th November. I am glad to say that deliveries of Terry squares by manufacturers were nearly 50 per cent. higher in November than they were in September. I am, of course, continuing to watch the situation closely.

Mrs. Manning: Since I have now received information that this shortage is still widespread and acute over the whole country, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this effort is the first fruits of his research marketing endeavours in America? If so, will he stop the supply there so that the babies in this country can have comfort and dry towels?

Mr. Wilson: No, it is not the result of my visit to the United States that there is a shortage of babies "nappies" in this country. It has been due, I think, partly to shortage of deliveries by the manufacturers; also later, in September, there was a big buying of cotton goods of various kinds. As I have said, supplies from manufacturers have increased by 50 per cent. but they have not yet reached the shops.

Census of Production

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the largest number of summonses for which application was made by his Department at Bow Street, on any one day this year, in respect of failure to render returns required for the census of production; and bow many summonses were issued on such application.

Mr. H. Wilson: Eight summonses were applied for on 12th and 18th November, 1949, respectively; and eight summonses were issued on each occasion.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that on one day this year his Department applied at Bow Street for 7,000 summonses on this account, and that the magistrate refused to grant anything like that number? He issued a thousand but insisted on their being distributed among different courts.

Mr. Wilson: The information which I have just given the hon. Member is the information given to me. If there were circumstances of the kind he has mentioned I should be glad to look into them and, if I receive different information, to correct what I have said.

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many clerks of his Department have been sworn in before a Bow Street magistrate under the Official Secrets Act during the last 12 months to deal with returns made by companies and firms.

Mr. H. Wilson: During the 12 months ended 30th November, 1949, 311 officers of my Department have made declarations before a magistrate at Bow Street that they will not improperly disclose the contents of individual returns.

Mr. Keeling: As the returns contain the answers to eight pages of questions, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the information is not out of date by the time it is collated? Further, is he satisfied that the employment of large numbers of people both to prepare and collate these returns is really justified?

Mr. Wilson: This matter was debated on a number of occasions when the Census of Production Act was going through the House. My answer to the hon. Member is that the information will certainly be of great value and great use, and that the use of the staff upon it is thoroughly justified.

Import Relaxations

Mr. Horabin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further statement to make about import relaxations in view of the decision by the Organisation for European Economic

Co-operation on 2nd November that member countries should adopt the objective of removing quantitative re-trictions before 15th December, 1949, on at least 50 per cent. of their total imports on private account from other member countries as a group, in the respective field of food, feedingstuffs and raw materials, and manufactured goods counted separately.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government have already made a substantial contribution to this objective in the form of open general licences for a wide range of imports into the United Kingdom which I announced on 29th September last. This contribution alone accounts, on the statistical basis laid down by the Organisation, for 83 per cent. of total private account imports of food and feedingstuffs from the participating countries as a group, for 37 per cent. in the case of raw materials excluding oil and for 49.7 per cent. in the case of manufactured goods.
I am now in a position to announce the removal of import licensing restrictions on imports into the United Kingdom from a further list of goods, mainly raw materials, but including some manufactured goods. As before, these relaxations will in general take the form of open general licences, valid as from 5th January next. The open general licences will extend to imports of the goods concerned from all the countries to which the previous relaxations applied. Full details will be printed in this week's Board of Trade Journal.
Together with the relaxations already in force these new relaxations will fully discharge His Majesty's Government's obligations under the Organisation's decision of 2nd November. In the raw materials group our relaxations will now extend to some 68 per cent. of imports in 1948 from the participating countries, and in the manufactured goods group to something over 50 per cent. For foodstuffs, as I have stated, we are already well over the 50 per cent. figure.
In determining the further commodities to be placed on open general licence the Government have continued to bear in mind the considerations mentioned in my statement of 29th September.

Mr. John Lewis: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has announced further relaxations, does not he think he might have waited until he has heard what the other member countries are prepared to do today in order to reciprocate in their attitude towards the liberalisation of intra-Euro-pean trade?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. All the nations who participated in O.E.E.C. entered into an obligation to table their proposals for achieving a 50 per cent. figure by yesterday, and I think it would be completely contrary to the lead we have given in the matter if we had waited to see what other nations were going to do.

Mr. Lewis: Can the President say what in fact they have stated that they are prepared to do?

Mr. Wilson: We have not yet seen their lists, but they did, jointly with us, enter into an obligation to reach a 50 per cent. figure.

Hardwood (De-control)

Mr. Horabin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further de-control of the hardwood trade is in prospect.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the need for continuing to import hardwood on Government account has ended, and all hardwood will therefore revert to private trading on 16th January next. At the same time, price control of imported hardwoods will be removed. Details of the scheme for reversion to private buying have been worked out by my officials with a committee of the hardwood trade and will be announced shortly. It will, moreover, be possible, as part of the additional measures of import relaxation which I have just announced, to permit any private trader to import hardwood freely from a wide range of countries.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this relaxation will not lead to an increase in the price of hardwood, and is he taking steps to ensure that that will not be so?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, it will not lead to an increase in the price. If I were not so satisfied I should have insisted on maintaining price control.

Mr. John E. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient supplies of hardwood under the proposed arrangement will be forthcoming to the furniture industry, and that there will not be an increase of price?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I am so satisfied, but if events turn against us, naturally we should have to review the situation.

Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it has been possible to free imports of hardwood and not softwood? What is the difference?

Mr. Wilson: There is a big difference in the availability of hardwood and, secondly, in the proportion obtained from dollar sources. If I gave the hon. Gentleman a full account of the difficulties I have had with the hardwood trade, to make sure that when they were decontrolled they did not completely restrict competition by quotas among themselves, and also prevent new entrants coming in, he would realise the great difficulty I should have to face in the case of softwood.

Mr. Scollan: Can the President tell the House if the Chancellor is prepared to allow a certain number of dollars for the purchase of this hardwood?

Mr. Wilson: There are a few types of speciality hardwoods essential for industrial use, and not available from other parts of the world, which have to be obtained from dollar countries, and will continue to be obtained from dollar countries.

Mr. W. Shepherd: What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the junk bought on Government account and now littering the country?

Mr. Wilson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's word "junk" in any sense, but arrangements have been made between the timber control and the trade for selling off the stocks at present in Government hands.

Mr. Haire: Can my right hon. Friend say if his proposal is based on the increasing importation of colonial hardwoods?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, we are importing vastly more colonial hardwood now than we have ever done before—I think something like five times or more the amount


we were getting before the war—from the major timber producing colonies.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the reply of the President mean that there is no immediate intention of de-controlling softwood?

Mr. Wilson: We have been looking at it and there have been preliminary discussions with the trade. But there have been thrown up a number of tremendous difficulties, and until those difficulties have been overcome there can be no question of de-controlling softwood.

Export Credit Facilities (Publicity)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he has arranged for publicity to be given to the facilities which the Export Credit Guarantee Department are prepared to offer to exporters to the dollar market.

Mr. H. Wilson: A Press conference to explain the new facilities offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department was held on 26th October, and a statement about them was then circulated to the national and trade Press, as well as being published in the Board of Trade Journal on 29th October. Pamphlets showing the services offered by the Department have been made available at all the branch offices of the Department as well as at the regional offices of the Board of Trade. I understand too that the Dollar Exports Board has circulated details widely in industry. The matter has also been referred to in a number of public statements including one I made at a Press conference which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I held on 8th December.

Sir P. Hannon: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he will make sure that all the officers of the Board of Trade in every part of the country realise the importance of this concession which has been made in the expansion of our export trade and to supplement what the Dollar Export Board are doing at the present moment?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I only wish I had the same confidence that the whole of industry were aware of the facilities available, and would make use of them in proper cases, as I have in regard to the officers of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of making the consumer, or user, in Canada aware of the facilities to be provided, in any statement which may be published, he will make it perfectly clear that the backing of His Majesty's Government is behind every firm which proposes to stock spare parts for the servicing of machines which may be shipped to Canada?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I have said that on a number of occasions, both in regard to Canada and the United States.

Argentina (Export Market)

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon he anticipates that it will be possible to export to Argentina goods listed under Category 3 of the Agreement with the Argentine Government, including metal-frame windows; and if, in view of the importance of such exports and the considerable market now available in Argentina, he will urge the Argentine Government to allow their import, duty free, as soon as possible.

Mr. H. Wilson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was informed on 1st December, the question of the issue by the Argentine Government of import permits for the goods listed in Schedule 3 to the Anglo-Argentine Trade and Payments Agreement (including metal frame windows) is one of the many issues which are now being discussed in Buenos Aires. I cannot say when we shall reach a satisfactory agreement. The question of import duty is a separate issue which I do not think could usefully be pursued while the larger questions are still not settled

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a big potential market for these windows at this moment, owing to various housing developments, and so on, which may not be open later on, and would he therefore consider pressing the Argentine Government to expedite the matter?

Mr. Wilson: I am very well aware of the very large market available in the Argentine for a wide range of our goods, not only metal windows, and certainly there has been no failure on our part to press the Argentine Government in every


way available to us to carry out the obligations they entered into under a previous agreement.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will again make it clear in any statement he sends to the Press, that it is the obstruction of the Argentine Government which is preventing the shipment of goods and not the unwillingness of His Majesty's Government or the manufacturers in this country?

Mr. Wilson: I should have thought that most of the manufacturers in this country are pretty well aware of the situation on these import restrictions—

Mr Stokes: Yes, but the users of them.

Mr. Wilson: —and I do not think it would be helpful, particularly with negotiations continuing, to add statements of that kind to their difficulties.

Mr. Stokes: Well, I do.

Exports (Transport Costs)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to offset the adverse effect on the price of export goods resulting from the increase in transport costs.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 28th November about the application made by the British Transport Commission for authority to increase certain of their charges. The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend has, in conformity with Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, decided to consult with, and consider the advice of, the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal, acting in this matter as a consultative committee. I cannot anticipate their advice to my right hon. Friend, or his decision in this matter.

Mr. Langford-Holt: When this application is—as the right hon. Gentleman and I both know it will be—accepted, can he assure the House that the resulting increase in costs from this increase in transport costs will in no way affect the export trade?

Mr. Wilson: As I have said, I cannot anticipate the advice given to my right hon. Friend, or to his decision; but whatever changes there may, or may not be, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulty and the extent to which international obligations will be breached if there were an attempt to subsidise the export trade as compared with the home trade by differential railway rates.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear, or will he agree, that the increased cost of transport on prices is very moderate and no recent increases have taken place in respect of exports as suggested in the Question?

Mr. W. Shepherd: How does the President expect private manufacturers to meet world competition if all the time they have to contend with the increasing costs of nationalised services?

Mr. Wilson: So far as the Question put by his hon. Friend is concerned, I think the supplementary question which the hon. Gentleman has put is a hypothetical one; but I would certainly say that I do not expect a lot of our exporters to increase their exports until they start looking for the export markets, and doing something about it.

Mr. Edward Davies: Is it not true, if the increase is accepted in this nationalised undertaking, that the price of transport will in fact be very much less than the price obtaining under the private sector of the industry, namely, in the region of 80 per cent. above prewar?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it more desirable to advise his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport of the Board of Trade point of view before a decision is come to, instead of afterwards when it may be too late?

Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend is fully aware—I think all my right hon. Friends are fully aware—of the need to take all possible steps to increase exports.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the importance of the export drive for this country, is not it about time that some of the Departments were getting together for the purpose of arranging a uniform freightage rate from any part of this


Island to the seaboard to enable works and factories in outlandish places to get an equal chance with those on the coast?

Mr. Wilson: That is an entirely separate question which I think should be put to the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not sufficient to rely on the intelligence of his right hon. Friend? Has he, in point of fact, made his views, and the views of his Department, known to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport?

Mr. J. Lewis: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that those people who are actually engaged in industry know full well that it is possible to bear an increased cost of transport out of the profits of the export trade?

Mr. Wilson: I have said on a number of occasions that, at least since devaluation, prices and costs in this country on their present level do not in any way provide the limiting factor to a very great increase in dollar exports which it lies within the opportunity of British industry to achieve.

British Samples, U.S.A. (Customs)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the long delay in passing British samples through the Customs in New York; and whether he will consult with the Foreign Secretary with a view to increasing the staff of the Commercial Department of the British Consulate-General in that city in order that it may be able to give all necessary assistance in this matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. I am satisfied from the recent tripartite discussions in Washington on customs procedures that the United States authorities are well aware of the importance of facilitating clearance of samples and goods through the Customs and are doing what they can to ensure this, but travellers should make certain that they have ready all particulars necessary for Customs clearance. I do not think it is necessary or desirable to consider an increase in our commercial diplomatic representation on. this ground, particularly in view of the friendly and

co-operative relations which already exist with the Customs authorities in the United States.

Mr. Bartlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been cases of British business men arriving in New York, having taken care in advance to get the necessary assurances from the Consulate-General, who have found that their samples cannot be released until they have found an importer on the spot, or that the promise to prepare a list of potential buyers has not been carried out? Does not that mean that there is an unnecessary waste of dollars?

Mr. Wilson: I hope that as a result of the discussions to which I have referred, these difficulties will be far fewer in the future than they have been in the past, but if any come to the notice of my hon. Friend in future I hope that he will let me have the particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICABS, LONDON

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is proposing to make a further revision of the memorandum on the abstract of the laws relating to London cab drivers in view of its unsuitability under modern conditions, and in particular of paragraph 39 on page 16 in which a taxicab driver is liable to prosecution if he leaves his taxicab unattended.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The abstract of laws relating to London taxi drivers has already been revised this year and I do not contemplate a further general revision at present. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that paragraph 39 refers to a statutory provision, which is still useful to prevent unnecessary obstruction, but is very rarely used.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some of these Acts are over 100 years old and that in view of their antiquity it is time that the whole situation in London was reviewed?

Mr. Ede: I shall be answering a Question later about that.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if


he is proposing to take any action in connection with the application made to him on 30th September for authority to charge increased fares for the hire of taxicabs in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. Ede: The application is at present under consideration in consultation with representative organisations of the cab industry.

Sir W. Wakefield: Can the Secretary of State say how soon some decision is likely to be reached in this matter? Will an early decision be arrived at or will this question be allowed to drag on for a long time?

Mr. Ede: I hope that it will not drag on for a long time. After all, when people are in consultation, I am not the only one to decide the pace of the proceedings.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the men who drive the taxis think that the present fares are quite reasonable, and all they are asking for is a limit of the number of men allowed to ply for hire so that they can earn a reasonable living themselves?

Mr. Ede: There is a dispute between the two sides of the industry, and some matters similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend come into the picture.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the Secretary of State refuse to accept his hon. Friend's suggestion to create an artificial shortage in this direction?

Mr. Ede: There is a Question about that later.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is better that these men should have a reasonable chance than that they should prowl about the streets; and that some men who drive taxis could be better used in industry?

Mr. Ede: It is always undesirable for people to prowl about the streets.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the Working Party on Hackney Carriage Laws.

Mr. Ede: The Working Party was appointed to examine the law relating to hackney carriages with special reference

to the need for modernising those provisions which are now obsolete and to make recommendations. The Acts of Parliament extend over more than 100 years and their provisions and the judicial decisions upon them have not previously been reviewed as a whole. This task of the Working Party must therefore take some time. Since the Working Party was first appointed, I have also asked them to consider as a matter of priority the general question of the limitation of the number of drivers and cabs and to let me have a report on this as soon as possible.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the representations made to him with a view to limiting the number of taxicabs in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. Ede: On 8th December I received a further deputation from the Transport and General Workers' Union on the question of the limitation of taxicabs and drivers. I have since asked the working party, to which, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) on 27th October, I referred this matter, to give it priority and let me have an interim report as soon as possible.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many fewer taxicabs there are in the Metropolitan area than before the war, and, further, is he aware that nobody considers that there are too many taxicabs except, perhaps, the taxi drivers themselves?

Mr. Ede: I could give the hon. Gentle man the figures if he would put down the Question, but I can assure him that there is a grave conflict of views not only among taxicab drivers and owners, but among other people as to the proper number that should be fixed.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon Friend continue the negotiations with the men's representatives before he comes to a decision regarding the number of taxi-cabs to be allowed?

Mr. Ede: Representatives of the men concerned are on the Working Party, and I have made arrangements whereby there shall be one person from their ranks especially qualified to deal with the matter.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far as one can fairly judge as between the relative circumstances of the taxi driver and the passenger, the balance of advantage continues to reside with the driver, and will he continue to grant licences to new taxi-cabs within reasonable limits in order to redress that position?

Mr. Ede: I do not want to give any answer until the Working Party have considered the matter. At the moment, no action has been taken which limits the number.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the Purchase Tax from taxicabs because their high cost is one of the reasons for these representations to limit the number of taxicabs on the streets?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that is so, because it is the people who buy the cabs who object to the limitation.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Would the Home Secretary, whatever the Working Party may say, proceed on the basis that supply should equal demand?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the public's point of view will be put to this Working Party, because the public must be considered in this matter? Does he not agree that that is so?

Mr. Ede: When I get the report I shall have to consider it in the light of the public interest.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is there any representative of the travelling public on this Working Party?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, there is.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (RECRUITMENT)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruits have now been enrolled for Civil Defence in England and Wales up to the last convenient date.

Mr. Ede: I will publish this information as soon as I have received the recruiting returns for which I have asked.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the Minister satisfied with the intake up to the present?

Mr. Ede: No, I do not expect ever to be satisfied with the intake for this kind of thing.

Brigadier Head: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any chance of the trend of recruitment being sufficient to satisfy minimum safety requirements?

Mr. Ede: I should hope so. I do not want to see a great rush of recruits until the instructors and those who will be responsible for what might be called noncommissioned posts have been trained.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that relations between his Department and the War Office are entirely satisfactory on this important matter?

Mr. Ede: I think that there is no doubt about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

Bedford

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, in connection with the electoral register now being compiled in Bedford and elsewhere, private persons are purporting without authority to be official checkers in the employ of the registration officer; and if he will use his powers under Section 66 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1948, to issue directions to the registration officer to make such arrangements as will prevent the continuation of these activities.

Mr. Ede: I have no information about these alleged activities, but in any event I could not usefully issue directions to the registration officer about the activities of persons not under his control.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the right of entry into the homes of electors of official checkers? Is it not wholly irregular that Tory canvassers in some constituencies should be collecting forms in bulk and sending them to the electoral registration officer?

Mr. Ede: The official canvasser on behalf of the registration officer has no right of entry by virtue of his position. I think that it is undesirable that a person other than the householder concerned should collect the forms on the pretext that he is going to post them, because he might forget.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a complaint of a similar occurrence to that mentioned in the Question has been made to me from my constituency and that, upon inquiry, I was informed that the canvasser in question was a representative from the Conservative Central Office? Has my. right hon. Friend any influence to ensure that Tory canvassers really look like Tories?

Mr. Ede: I understand that the best canvasser is the person who looks as if he belongs to the other side.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Secretary of State aware that if his hon. Friend succeeded in stopping all the Conservative canvassers in his division, he would still lose his seat?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that I am going greatly to increase my majority?

Service Voters

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KEELING:

133. To ask the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the fact that the number of Service voters on the 1949 electoral registers is only about one-third of the estimated number who have a Service qualification, he will appoint a committee to consider what further efforts can be made to induce men and women with a Service qualification to register.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent of the House, I would like to answer Question No. 133 on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Defence.
Members of the Forces and their wives form the great majority of those with "Service qualifications and the most strenuous efforts have been, and will continue to be made to encourage them to

complete the necessary declarations for inclusion in the Electoral Register. In the circumstances a Committee on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would serve no useful purpose, particularly as the qualifying dates for the Spring 1950 Register have now passed.
The latest information indicates that approximately 50 per cent. of Service voters have already been included in the Spring 1950 Register and appreciable numbers of qualifying declarations are still being received.

Mr. Keeling: But as it is clear, even on the expected 1950 basis, that something like 200,000 men and women entitled to claim the Service vote have failed to do so, and as it is also a fact that the ordinary householder is under a statutory obligation to register, should it not be considered whether Service men and women should be placed under a like obligation, either statutory or disciplinary?

Mr. Whiteley: We are making this matter as widely known as possible and using every effort to get everybody on to the register, but we think that at this time a committee, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would not really be effective because the work is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Was particular care taken to see that these documents followed the Service men on posting to overseas and elsewhere?

Mr. Whiteley: Yes, that has been attended to very expressly.

Mr. Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether consideration should not be given to including Service men on the register automatically, without formal application?

Mr. Whiteley: That is a matter which we shall consider. I will convey that point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hare: Would the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that commanding officers of units will be reminded that they should make these facts known to men serving under their command?

Mr. Whiteley: So far as I am informed, everything is done in that respect and proper notices are placed so that these people know exactly what their position is.

Mr. Keeling: As the Service vote can now be claimed by all civil servants abroad who are paid by the Treasury, and also by their wives, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any similar steps have been taken about them?

Mr. Whiteley: No, I cannot give any information about that, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend press his right hon. Friend to take all possible steps to see that the tragedy which occurred in 1945—[Interruption]—does not repeat itself—a tragedy whereby thousands and thousands of men and women were prevented from receiving their voting papers and, therefore, prevented from voting?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Shorthand-Writers

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what qualifications as shorthand-writers are required of Metropolitan police officers attending political meetings for the purpose of recording remarks which might be the subject of a criminal charge.

Mr. Ede: Officers employed on this work are required to pass an efficiency test in shorthand for which the minimum speed accepted is 100 words a minute. Many of them can reach higher speeds.

Mr. Greenwood: In view of the fact that police reports of Fascist meetings appear at times to conflict with those made by outside competent observers, will my right hon. Friend look into this question or qualifications again because it would be a great pity if the veracity of the police came to be called into question?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that these qualifications need looking into. If any other person who takes a report is prepared to appear in court in support of it, I will have that report considered to see whether it justifies a prosecution.

Housing

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the statements in the Oaksey

Report, what steps he now proposes to take to provide new houses for the police.

Mr. Ede: The report has only just been published and police authorities have not yet had time to study it. I am however fully aware of the problems caused by the shortage of police housing both in London and elsewhere, and I propose to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at an early date to consider what further action can be taken in the light of the report.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister tell us, approximately, how many houses are required before the police can be said to be decently housed; if he is aware that 30,000 married quarters are to be built for the Armed Forces in the next few years; and if the police are going to get equal treatment?

Mr. Ede: We do not want 30,000.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman get a little closer to his right hon. Friend right away, because until he gets the houses for the police he will never get recruits?

Mr. Lipson: In his consultation with his right hon. Friend, will the Home Secretary consider whether it is practicable to give to police authorities a quota of houses for policemen above that assigned to the local authorities for the civilian population? The number cannot be great over the whole nation.

Mr. Ede: I am going to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS

Accommodation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent improvements have taken place in regard to accommodation in remand homes and approved schools; whether this is now adequate; and if corporal punishment has decreased during the past 12 months.

Mr. Ede: Necessary adjustments in accommodation are made to meet current demands. There is no deficiency of accommodation except in approved schools for younger boys, for whom more


places are being provided. There has been no significant variation in the number of cases of corporal punishment.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that very encouraging progress in providing this accommodation has been made in the last year?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, and a slight drop in the number of persons sent.

Absconders (Imprisonment)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young persons absconding from approved schools have been imprisoned during the past six months without any charge having been preferred; in what portion of the prison they are confined; by what legal authority the imprisonment is authorised; and how many of such young persons are persons who have never been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence.

Mr. Ede: Most absconders are returned immediately to the school when apprehended. Those under 17 who are not so returned are lodged in a remand home temporarily. During the past six months, eight boys and 22 girls over 17 were lodged in prison for short periods pending my decision whether they should be charged with absconding: most of them were placed with persons on remand or awaiting trial, and some in the prison hospital. In such cases the Prison Governor concerned is authorised to take charge of the absconder by the school managers under paragraph 13 of the Fourth Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Fifteen of the girls and one of the boys concerned were originally committed to an approved school as being beyond control or as falling into bad associations or moral danger and, therefore, in need of care or protection.

Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend take the opinion of the Law Officers as to how far it is lawful to imprison young persons without charge and without trial?

Mr. Ede: Before the Criminal Justice Act came into force, school managers had power to charge a boy or a girl with absconding, and the practice then was to

bring immediately before a court any person charged by the managers with absconding. Section 82 of that Act made it necessary for the school managers to get the consent of the Secretary of State before charging a person with absconding, so that arrangements had to be made for detention. When remand centres are provided under the Criminal Justice Act, the approved school absconders, like other persons between the ages of 17 and 21, will be lodged in a remand centre, instead of in prison. I will take the opinion of the Law Officers on the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I am assured that the power exists.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not the present position that a change in the law which was intended to protect a young person from prosecution, except with the leave of my right hon. Friend, is now operated in order to keep young persons, many of whom have never been charged with any criminal offence at all, for at least seven days in prison? If that is the case, ought not the arrangements to be reviewed?

Mr. Ede: The difficulty of dealing with some of these cases, and with girls particularly, is very great, and while I am anxious to avoid their being sent to prison as far as is possible, in some cases, with the existing arrangements about buildings, I have no other alternative.

Mr. Assheton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain that these children do not come into contact with criminals, which, in fact, does happen on certain occasions?

Mr. Ede: As I said in my original answer, they are placed with prisoners on remand, or awaiting trial, and some of them in hospital.

Mr. John Paton: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, no matter how difficult these girls and boys may be, the last place on earth which is likely to have any reformatory effect is a prison?

Mr. Ede: I agree with that, but, on the other hand, I have a duty to discharge with regard to these people, and, with the present shortage of accommodation, cases do arise where no other alternative is possible. I do regard it, as my hon. Friend says, as the last place on earth.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as these difficult girls are concerned, they are not criminals and have never been charged with any criminal offence? They suffer from too bountiful a nature, I suppose, but that is surely no reason why they should be placed in prison?

Mr. Ede: I am charged with the duty of securing that they are placed in a position in which it is possible to consider whether they should be charged with absconding or not, and until I am relieved of that responsibility I have no other alternative.

Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the highest degree undesirable to place anybody, let alone young persons who have never committed any crime, in prison merely because of the administrative convenience of the Department or the lack of accommodation elsewhere?

Mr. Ede: It is undesirable, but, unfortunately, at the moment it is inevitable.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: As there is now surplus accommodation in approved schools, particularly for senior girls, will my right hon. Friend consider transferring some of these buildings which are not fully used for that purpose for the purpose of remand homes?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think that I have a single home that is completely empty.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion is that, if anyone is to handle this job, like the case of these difficult girls, he is precisely the man to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACEHORSES (DOPING)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of public disquiet he will introduce legislation which will have the effect of making the doping of racehorses an indictable offence.

Mr. Ede: I have no reason to suppose that the practice referred to is of such a nature or is of such proportions as to justify me in proposing legislation adding new offences to the criminal law.

Mr. Lewis: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a case recently reported in the Press where three trainers had their licences withdrawn by the Jockey Club because the horses in their care were found to be doped, and does not he agree that, if it was an indictable offence, the decision of a court of law would be a factor in determining whether or not the person concerned should be deprived of his livelihood?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir; I do not think that would bind the Stewards of the Jockey Club. As I understand it, the requirement of the Stewards is that the trainer is responsible for the care and health of the horse, and I am bound to say that I think that that is a very proper requirement to make.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend taking any special precautions to see that the horse owned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not doped before the General Election, in view of the large quantity of dope in the proximity of the stables?

Mr. Ede: The stables in question are very near to my own place of abode, and I hope that my hon. Friend is making no personal reflection..

Mr. Lewis: While it is not suggested that the Jockey Club acted wrongly in this matter, surely it is the duty of my right hon. Friend to take into account the position of people deprived of their livelihood without recourse to any appeal whatever?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not responsible for the employment of these people, nor for the rules under which they work.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOUNTAIN RESCUE PARTIES (MORPHIA)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet reached a decision on the supply of morphia in collapsible tubes for emergency use to accredited mountain-rescue parties.

Mr. Ede: I have written to the representatives of mountaineering interests outlining arrangements which will, I understand, be satisfactory to them; and I have sent my hon. Friend a copy of the letter.

Dr. Segal: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware how timely this decision is, in view of the approaching Christmas holidays, and can he explain how far this new decision differs from the previous regulations?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. These are arrangements made to meet extraordinary circumstances in mountaineering districts, particularly in the Lake District.

Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite may find a little morphia soothing after the. forthcoming landslide?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Cottage Hospitals (Charges)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that under his regulations the future weekly charge for private rooms at Moretonhampstead Cottage Hospital will be, without medical attendance, 17 guineas, and with such attendance £26 8s., and at Bovey Tracey Cottage Hospital, without medical attendance, 15 guineas and with such attendance, £19 12s.; and whether he will authorise a reduction in these charges.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): These charges have been calculated in accordance with the requirements of the National Health Service Act, to cover the whole cost of the accommodation and services provided, and I have no power to reduce them.

Brigadier Rayner: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it? Does he realise that in many of these small cottage hospitals, offering very few amenities, they have to charge more than the London Clinic; that a great many old people want to have extra privacy and are quite able to pay reasonably for it, but cannot afford these fantastic prices: and does he know that doctors, nurses and patients are absolutely fed up with the whole business as regards private rooms?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member has entirely exaggerated the situation. The fact is that so long as there is need for hospital accommodation it is not desirable to relax the situation so that people can buy their way into hospitals before those who need them more.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the bankrupt nature of the Hospital Service, can the right hon. Gentleman afford to lose the revenue from these private rooms?

Mr. Bevan: The Hospital Service is no more bankrupt than the resources of the nation.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not the Act already provide that any patient needing a private room for medical reasons will get it over the head of anybody else, and is it not a rather unfortunate position as a result of this Act that these very high prices should be charged?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member confuses the situation. There are two types of accommodation in hospitals for which a charge is made. There is the amenity bed for which one only has to pay for the privacy, and there is the other where one has to pay for the surgeon and the medical service if one insists upon having surgeons of a particular kind. In most hospitals it is now possible to have both. In this hospital to which reference is made, if the beds are empty, they are made available to persons who need them urgently.

Brigadier Rayner: Who is going to buy them at 19 guineas a time in a small cottage hospital?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that if they cannot buy them at that price, they can have them free if they need them urgently.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Health, if he has now discovered the percentage of persons who cannot be fitted with the Medresco hearing aid; and if he now proposes to allow distributing centres of aids to the hard of hearing to supply other hearing aids until the new Medresco is ready.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that the percentage likely to benefit from a different electrical aid is less than 5. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that even when the Medresco hearing aid is available in quantity it will not suit everybody, and will he therefore give the makers of other hearing aids a chance of letting the public have them?

Mr. Bevan: At the moment we are investigating the possibility of having an aid which will be suitable for the less than 5 per cent. of the hard of hearing, and when that aid is available it will be distributed freely like the Medresco aid.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to announce the result of these investigations?

Mr. Bevan: I hope before long, but as these are scientific investigations I cannot give a definite time.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Are we to take it that these unfortunate 5 per cent. are to wait without any relief because of the obstinacy of the Minister?

Mr. Bevan: No, but what I am not prepared to do is to mulct the taxpayers of Great Britain to provide commercial aids.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Council Sites, Kent

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered cases submitted to him showing delays in fixing sites for proposed housing owing to differences of view amongst Government Departments and different councils in parts of Kent; and whether he is satisfied that the machinery and procedure for settling these differences are the best that can be devised.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The difficulty in these cases has, in the main, arisen through the need to reconcile the conflicting claims of agriculture and housing. I will write to my hon. Friend giving him fuller details of each case. The procedure is on the whole working well but it is being very carefully watched and such improvements will be made as experience may dictate.

Farm Workers' Cottages (Reconditioning)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with reconditioning farm workers' cottages since the passing of the 1949 Housing Act.

Mr. Bevan: Sufficient time has not yet elapsed since the passing of the Housing Act, 1949, for any indication to be given.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the Minister aware of the sore need for reconditioning and for additional cottages in rural areas, and will he press forward the machinery whereby the provisions of this Act can be made available?

Mr. Bevan: The housing force in the rural areas is now fully engaged, and as a circular on this matter was only sent out on 15th September, sufficient time has not yet elapsed to find out how it is working.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how far the recently announced cuts in the capita] housing programme will affect this reconditioning of rural cottages?

Mr. Bevan: It will not, because it has obviously not had time to operate yet.

Building Materials (Freight Charges)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health how far his Department's recent estimate of the share of the Government's capital investment programme available for housing, took account of any increase in railway freight charges and consequent rise in the cost of building materials.

Mr. Bevan: Not at all—no increase in railway freight charges has as yet been imposed.

Sir I. Fraser: That is not my Question Can the Minister answer my Question which is how far a contemplated rise in freight charges was in his mind when he applied to the Chancellor for his quota and got it?

Mr. Bevan: As no increase in freight charges has yet taken place, and as even if an increase, in freight charges does in fact take place we do not know to what extent, if at all, they will be increased, it is not possible for me to make the calculation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICAL POWER INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make about the situation in the electrical power industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir. Following yesterday's discussions between the Trade Union officials and the shop stewards from the various Power Stations, the men this morning at meetings agreed to resolutions to return to work on the withdrawal of the Service men on duty there. I have just received information that, unfortunately, difficulties have arisen about which I am now making inquiries.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand this information is on the tapes and it cannot be a secret. Is not the position that at Brimsdown and Littlebrook the men have not gone back? Is that the position?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes. It is the position. They went back, but the difficulty I have referred to is a difficulty about some terms or conditions which have been argued or sought to be agreed. I am making arrangements to take the matter up immediately with the parties.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House a question? We are in some difficulty because this is the last occasion upon which we can ask any questions about this matter at all and, unhappily, the position is still obscure. We hoped it would not be obscure. May I ask the Prime Minister this? I presume that in the event of the situation not improving, or of its deteriorating as it did in the case of the docks strike—and we all hope that will not happen—and supposing that emergency powers are necessary, it is a fact that under the existing statute, the Government could then bring the House together at very short notice even though we had prorogued?

Mr. Ede: That is the position. We do not anticipate in any event that emergency powers would be necessary to deal with this particular dispute, but the House can be called together by Proclamation and can meet on any day after the Proclamation has been issued

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour say whether the position at the Dartford station is not that a large number of men, including some supervisors who are members of my own trade union, have returned to work to find themselves locked out by the local management? This has caused great indignation locally and may even lead to the danger of an official stoppage. Will my right hon. Friend look into that?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, but the House will appreciate that I said yesterday that there is dynamite lying about. It is piling up. I would ask the House not to press me, in view of the difficult situation. As soon as I can make a definite statement one way or the other, I shall ask your leave to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Sir John Mellor: As it has been reported that one of the conditions demanded has been that there shall be no prosecutions, will the right hon. Gentleman make this clear—that no one can contract out of the criminal law?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Any further Proceedings on the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1. —(COLLECTION, REALISATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY.)

Lords Amendment: 'In page 3, line 3, at end insert:
(7) Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to, or was held or managed on behalf of, a German company, and it appears to the Board of Trade that the company was on the said day controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United Kingdom company, the Board may treat that property for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, to such extent as the Board think fit having regard to the extent of the interest of the United Kingdom company in the German company, as property to which the United Kingdom company would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder.
In this subsection, the expression "German company" means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, Germany, and the expression "United Kingdom company" means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of. the United Kingdom.

3.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave to the House when the Bill was passing through Committee. I think those who remember our Debate on that occasion will agree with me when I say that we have implemented to the full the undertaking which I then gave.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. A great many of us who are interested in what my right hon. Friend has to say are quite unable to hear a word of it. I wonder whether anything could be done about it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I had moved that we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment and I went on to say that this implements to the full the undertaking I gave when this Bill passed through Committee—an undertaking that I would have another look at the position and, if it were possible to do, at any rate partially, what the Opposition then asked

me to do, that I would see that the necessary Amendment was made in another place. I do not want to labour this matter because I think those who are interested in it are fully cognisant of what we are doing.

Mr. Assheton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. At an earlier stage we asked him to look into this matter and the Amendment which has come back from their Lordships' House, I think, meets the point which we raised. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question: does the word "property" in the first line of the Amendment include debts of all kinds?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, it does, although perhaps I should remind the House that when we dealt with this matter in Committee I drew a distinction between trade debts and capital assets. I indicated that we felt that trade debts should not be included. However, in my view, and I think in the general view of the House, capital assets come into a different category. This Amendment is in the widest terms and the expression "German enemy property" would cover trade debts if, in the view of the President of the Board of Trade at the time, it was felt desirable that at any rate some debts of this kind should be included.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NUTRITION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

3.50 p.m.

Mrs. Ganley: I recognise that it is an honour to be called upon to open a Debate on this most interesting question. In view of the number of Questions that have been put down recently about it—and, indeed, for a long time past—this matter of food supplies is, we can take it, a very interesting one indeed.
I should like to remind hon. Members of a pronouncement made by Dr. Boyd-Orr—as he then was—a little before the war about the nutrition of our people. For that purpose the period from 1934 to 1938—which I shall refer to as the prewar period—was taken. He stated that


in 1936 there were 4,500,000 of the population who spent 4s. per head per week on food; that there were 9,000,000 who spent 6s. per head per week on food; and that there were 9,000,000 who spent 8s. per head per week on food.
The comment he made then was that the nutrition of the 4,500,000 who spent 4s. per head per week on food was inadequate in all respects; that the 9,000,000 who spent 6s. a head per week lacked proteins and fats; and that the 9,000,000 who spent 8s. a head a week were below a sufficient standard in vitamins and minerals. That was the pronouncement which we had at that time, and we were not at all happy to hear it, although we had to accept it because it was made by a man of such great eminence.
I would ask hon. Members to consider the quantities that were consumed at that time in dairy products. Let us take milk, for example. In the pre-war period which we are considering, 216.9 lbs. per head of liquid milk were consumed per year and 12.3 lbs. per head of condensed milk. What were the conditions? There were houses outside which several quarts of liquid milk were left daily, but there were also houses into which no liquid milk went. I very well, remember many years ago, as secretary of a school-care committee, having to go into the homes of many people upon whose tables I saw nothing but skimmed and condensed milk. The reason for that was the small amount of those families' incomes and the small amount of money per head that they had to spend on food.
What is the position today? Per head of the population 336.7 lbs. of liquid milk are consumed, but the position is different because today we portion it out, so that while the ordinary consumer is allowed three pints per head per week, there are priority consumers who have more. Among them are expectant and nursing mothers and young children, who get seven pints a head per week; and after the age of five, children are secured three and a half pints at home, and, of course, school milk, too. Therefore, they are able to obtain this most valuable food, and, as far as nursing and expectant mothers are concerned, at a price they are able to meet.
Let us look at oils and fats. First, butter. We all regret that those who were able to consume a reasonable quantity of butter before the war are not now able to get it because of the distribution of butter today. The average pre-war individual consumption was 24.8 lb. a year; now it is 12.5 lb.; but we are assured at the present time of 4 oz. per head per week. A substitute—margarine—has been introduced into generai consumption. We remember the very glowing advertisements of pre-war days saying margarine was a substitute for butter—that margarine was excellent and was good for people. So I am quite sure that nobody can complain that now there are 4 oz. per week per head. Taking our total consumption of fats, we find that pre-war it was 45.3 lb. a year, but today the average individual consumption of any person is 40.6 lb. a year. Therefore, there is certainly no room for complaint to be made about the shortage of fats of this kind. There is very little difference between the pre-war and present day total consumption, and that is mainly, of course, because these fats are so much more evenly distributed.
Next let us take the question of meat. There are a number of folk who regret the absence of meat from their tables. However, as we travel round the country we can see the fine porkers running about, and the increasing number of fat cattle. I cannot remember having seen the country looking so fit as it is today, and that is because of the encouragement the present Government have given to our agricultural lands. A farmer would be lost for conversation if he had no grouse, and yet we can detect the pride in his voice and the delight in his eye today, as he extols his stock.
I have had the great pleasure of going among a number of Somerset farmers. One of them had been in business as a milk retailer, but decided that that business was rather difficult and went into farming, and I heard him say, "Yes, my boy, yes; and I advise everybody to go in for farming: you cannot go wrong." The agricultural labourer also has a very much better position today, and, therefore, is able to get much more of the food he himself is producing, and is able to enjoy a much better and more comfortable life.
In place of meat, we have fish as an alternative food for main meals, and we warmly welcome today the better distribution of poultry and rabbits. As we pass through our main towns we can see rabbits and poultry offered for sale in the windows of the shops. It is very welcome. Consumption of cheese has varied very little. Before the war the average was 8.8 lb. per head, and now it is 8.4 lb.—very little difference in the total consumption. The ration is 2 ozs. per head per week for the ordinary consumer, but it is 12 ozs. for vegetarians and certain classes of workers. Therefore, in fish and cheese we have alternatives to meat.
Let us look at eggs. The pre-war individual consumption of shell eggs per year was 21.3, and now it is 17.8; but that 17.8 is rationed, so let us consider how that ration is apportioned. All the expectant and nursing mothers have an allocation of two, and they have a packet of dried eggs every eight weeks. With this allocation of eggs, and with her milk and fat ration for herself, her baby and her children, a mother is better off now than she was before the war.
I would remind the House that the expectant nursing mother also has an additional half meat ration, with her supply of orange juice, cod liver oil, and vitamin A and B tablets. The milk in schools for the children has also been continued, and the meals in schools extended as rapidly as accommodation is made available. For infants from six months to two years there are three priority eggs per week; and for certain infants there is also extra milk. National milk cocoa for young persons who are employed workers, students or members of youth organisations at l½ d. per one-third of a pint.
For the old folk there is the extra ounce of tea in addition to the 2½ oz. per week on the ration, and 4½ oz. per week on the sweet ration. I include the sweet ration because, in addition to the fact that more jam is available today, which increases the whole sweet allocation, we must remember what happened when sweets went off the ration, and how terribly difficult it was for those who were not able to afford to buy supplies of sweets, to get any at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Rubbish.

Dr. Morgan: It is true.

Mrs. Ganley: I happen to be a rationed consumer, and the strange thing was that the whole time that sweets were off the ration I did not get one sweet because I was not able to spare the time to go looking for them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is a different point.

Mrs. Ganley: Nor was I of a mind to go and buy them in a shop other than that in which I had been expecting to get them, which would have been at the expense of others. I heard that some women were able to get pounds of chocolates because their husbands happened to be working in a place where chocolates were made. When a person says a thing like that, I assume that that individual was glad enough to get those chocolates in that way. The sweets situation at that time was something of a warning for all those who previously, by getting a ration allocated to them, had been sure of the things that were essential and clearly necessary.
The increased fruit supplies have been most welcome. We have seen fruit coming back again into the greengrocers' stores. That is the kind of thing we have looked for, and which we warmly welcome. The greater variety of fruit that we now have makes things very much easier. Cereals also are much easier; they are not now rationed because there are more available, and they add to the variety of food that can be put on the table.
What is the measure of value? When we look at the food supplies and food consumption of the United' Kingdom, looking back over those years at food distribution and the manner in which it has been carried on by rationing, can We say it has been of real value to the whole of the population? Or is it true as people sometimes say "We are the worst-fed nation in Europe"—it was once said in this House? Is it true to say "We are very badly off; we have to stand and wait and wait, and then cannot get the goods we want"? During the past month I travelled up to Liverpool, and in the carriage was a man who said that he was a Dutchman. I asked him what he thought of England, and he said, "Oh, England will pull through." He had


no doubt about whether England was all right. I then asked him how they were doing in Holland,. and he answered, "Well, we are free from controls, but in Holland we could not get a meal like the one I have just had for 4s."
The question of nutrition very definitely enters into the question of the measure of value. Our maternity mortality figures and our infantile mortality figures are the lowest on record: 53 in 1938, 34 last year, down to 30 in the June quarter of this year. For some time I was closely associated with local authority work, particularly in connection with maternity and child welfare, and I always watched most carefully to see how this was going. It is one of the greatest joys that anyone who has been doing this kind of work can feel and deeply appreciate. Our mothers are better cared for and our babies are better born than ever before in our history.
Vital statistics depend upon vital nutrition. Professor Bonnet, when reviewing the situation, said in a survey in 1948:
In 10 years England will have a generation of young men and women superior physically and mentally to that of any other European country. I am convinced that the excellent physical condition of these children is due to their feeding. Their diet is perfectly balanced, and the system of milk in schools, school feeding and extra vitamin nourishment provided by clinics has had obvious results.
That was the comment of a leading French specialist, when looking at our English children in our schools.
I therefore commend the Government for their wisdom in continuing rationing, so securing fair shares to all and bringing a stability into our national life, which is felt and spoken of by all who come to our country, and is having its effect on those engaged in production. The position today is such that we can measure the value of continuing to give fair shares to all, and giving that stability which ensures that the range of things a person wants is there within the limits of his purse. The consequence of that is shown everywhere in the vital statistics and in the comments of people who visit our country, both of which I have already quoted.
I am sure we all welcome the White Paper on Food Consumption Levels in the United Kingdom, because in it people

can see the trend of the supplies which have been made available for the whole population, and the way in which they have been distributed. We should consider this White Paper as a most valuable contribution to the thought of the people as a whole. Those who read it will be able to understand it because it is in simple language. It is not all in terms of calories but has been brought down to the measurement of pounds, which is the sort of thing the housewife is accustomed to using. I therefore very heartily commend the White Paper, not only to hon. Members, but to everybody who has the opportunity and the will to read it.

4.9 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: We have all listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley). We appreciate her sincerity, and we know that she believes what she has said.

Dr. Morgan: It is true.

Viscountess Davidson: I must admit that I am always a little anxious when I listen to speeches from hon. Members opposite, because they are so complacent. For them everything is all right; everything is perfect. My experience is that no Government and no individual is ever quite perfect. There is no question on which experts differ more widely than on the question of nutrition. Hon. Members will remember cases which they have taken up with the Ministry of Food in which the experts—doctors and specialists—who have been dealing with these cases over many years have differed profoundly from the doctors who advise the Ministry of Food. I do not think that I have very often been successful in my battle with the Ministry of Food over these cases, and I only mentioned them to show that on the question of nutrition experts can differ profoundly.
Statistics do not prove everything. The present Government take the credit for everything—perhaps we ought to be getting used to that—but I am not going to allow them to get away with the idea that they alone are responsible for the position which exists today. Improvement in the nutrition of our people has been taking place over a long period of


years—certainly over the last 50 years. Many of us remember, in the years before the war, the work which was being done in the training and feeding of babies and small children in the clinics, babies' clubs and welfare centres and the talks with parents on how a baby or small child should be brought up. Those who have helped in welfare centres and clinics know that there was an enormous improvement in the feeding and handling of small children in those years with resulting improvement of their general health.
I also wish to quote from Lord Boyd Orr. In his book "The Feeding of the People" he said:
The rate of increase in improvement in the feeding of the people has shown a great and continuing acceleration over the period 1914-1939, particularly in the latter part.
He gives tables confirming this. Perhaps I might remind the House that milk for school children was first introduced by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) who introduced the Bill into this House. It was the late Sir Kingsley Wood who was mainly responsible for initiating the supply of other foods, such as cod liver oil and special food for mothers, and I feel that it is only fair to give them credit for that. That was before the war. To hear some hon. Members opposite speak one would think that nothing had ever been done until 1945.
What of the period of the war itself? It was a period of very great achievement on the part of Lord Woolton, who showed a remarkable ability for overcoming difficulties far transcending any with which the present Government have had to deal. It would indeed be shocking if the standard had not improved in the post-war years, and if the improvement during the war had not been maintained. I feel that Lord Woolton did more in regard to nutritional work than any other person. In "The Labour Party Manifesto" the work he did has been brushed aside as if it were of no importance. In all fairness, I think it right that these facts should be stated.
I want to speak now of the present and the future rather than of the past. We have all seen the report which Sir Wilson Jameson has just published, "The Health of the School Child." It gives, on the

whole, a most encouraging picture. I would remind the House that the children spoken about are the children who benefited and whose mothers benefited from the measures to which I have referred. The report states:
In terms of avoirdupois there has been no significant change for better or for worse in the nutrition of the average child. If, however, it is admitted that increased susceptibility to infection and minor ailments may be the precursor of defective nutrition, then, it is clear that there are now fewer 'average' children than there were two or three years ago.
That is only a small pointer, but it is a pointer that should not be disregarded.
I want to speak now about the position of a mother. That position is not so satisfactory. I will quote an extract from the report of the Ministry of Health for the year ending 31st March, 1948:
Indeed the nutritional state of the great majority of the adolescents examined was very satisfactory. In view of this finding it seemed likely that the brunt of any food shortage in families of adolescents and grown-ups was being borne by the housewife. An attempt was accordingly made in London and other cities to assemble for nutritional assessment representative groups of mothers of families of adolescent age and over. It was not found possible to secure representative groups, and while this made any general statement about the nutritional state of this class of mother impossible, the nutrition of those examined was certainly less satisfactory than that of any other group of the population.
This is not a new problem. The mother has always tended to neglect herself so that her husband and children may benefit. Obviously, the health of the housewife and mother is, in the end, the foundation of all national health. I think that I am right in saying—the right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong—that some propaganda was put about a short time ago urging mothers to use special protective foods. It may be that something more could be done in that direction, because I think that it is extremely important.
I cannot claim to have medical knowledge such as the right hon. Lady possesses. I am merely an ordinary person, I judge from my own observations and from ordinary contacts, but Members who had the opportunity of visiting Germany after the war were, I am sure, struck, as I was struck, by the appearance of the middle-aged housewife and young mother. There was a greyness of the face which was very marked and which showed what these women had been through—starvation or very near


starvation. In France, in the first year or so after the war, the appearance of the women was very much the same. Perhaps it was not quite so bad, but we know that they were near starvation in many parts of France. I am not talking about Paris, but of other parts of France.
When I was in France about a year ago, I noticed a marked improvement, and I know that what I am saying is borne out by others from both sides of the House, because I have had an opportunity of talking this matter over with some hon. Members on the Government benches. An extraordinarily marked change had taken place, and it was particularly marked among the class of women to whom I have referred. There was a different expression of face, colour of skin, brightness and enthusiasm which was not apparent in the period shortly after the war. I am quite certain that is due to the fact that meat, cheese and fats were far more easily available. France was then producing meat as hard as she could produce it, A great many of the controls had been lifted. The enthusiasm for production had been increased, and the result was very remarkable indeed.
No doubt the right hon. Lady will tell me, when she replies, that the only place they could get that food was in the black market, and that had I been in the big towns I would have seen people in a much worse condition. I am judging the real France—not the big towns. In the small shops which I visited, used by the workingclass people, meat was available at very reasonable prices, and I was told on all sides that people were able to get almost as much meat, cheese and fats as they required. The whole atmosphere of the country had changed.
In this country, before the war, the Sunday joint played a much bigger part in the life of a family than it does today. The dripping, pot and bones—very important—bacon fat and offal—what would we not do today to get a bit of offal!—were all part of the usual household supplies—not the rich household but the ordinary household. Children of the workingclass household before the war could usually get dripping on their bread; it was the best possible food a child could have. The pre-war meat was not frozen but chilled. The Parliamentary

Secretary, replying to a Question yesterday, told us that we are having frozen meat from the Argentine, which we know is not as good as the chilled meat we had before the war. That must make a great deal of difference in this building-up food that gives us energy.
There is a lassitude today which we certainly did not see before the war. It is apparent in all sections of the population. The effect of all this is cumulative. Actually, the lowest point in our diet was in 1940, but I think I am right in saying that the strain of the war was not felt until 1944. That was because we had reserves in us, and because heavy killing off of herds resulted in more meat for everyone. The present lassitude is obvious to all, and particularly to those coming from abroad.
I had the opportunity of talking to two Australian doctors the other day who were in this country for many years before the war as students. They have now come back to this country for the first time since the war, and they are deeply distressed at what they see, particularly the appearance of the ordinary housewife. They felt she was showing more signs of a lack of the right kind of nourishment than any other section of the population.
Those who feed in canteens do not need stimulating foods as much as the miners, the agricultural workers and the housewives. The improvement that is seen in France should surely be seen now more clearly in this country, but the Government have made vast mistakes in handling the feeding of the people. If the rebuilding of our pig stocks and beef herds had received far greater encouragement immediately after the war and more feedingstuffs imported we should now be seeing a different state of affairs. If the buying of meat from foreign countries had been better handled, we could have increased the meat supplies and given the people the food that builds up and energises the body.
People are being asked to work much harder today than before the war, and to produce more on a diet which, according to the White Paper, has ony just reached the level of pre-war in quantity, but certainly not in quality. This is making a demand which cannot be fulfilled; it is as when Pharaoh asked the Egyptians to make bricks without straw. This was not looked on as an act of statesmanship nor


was he regarded as one who understood how to deal with the problem. If this discussion is treated from a realistic point of view and not from a party point of view, it should do good. If this Debate results in more rapid steps towards the fulfilment of our desires, then it will have been worth while

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Somervillc Hastings: I wish to say how profoundly I agree with many of the statements made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson). I agree that nutrition has been improving steadily, but I would point out that the improvement in the children during the years since the war has been really extraordinary. I have travelled in other countries in Europe since the war, and I have looked at the children, particularly in France, Switzerland, Roumania and Germany. I must say that I have never seen in any other country such bonny children as we have here.
The hon. Lady pointed out, with great truth, that the recovery in France recently has been very extraordinary, and that a certain amount of nourishing food can be obtained there even by the working classes. I would remind her, however, that in France and most of the other countries of Europe the workers have to make use of a much higher proportion of their wages to get sufficient food than is the case in this country. Unless something like three-quarters of the wages was spent on food in France, at any rate until quite recently, a sufficient amount of food was not easily obtainable
In our approach to the important question of food, we must realise that the situation is not confined to this country. There is a world shortage of food, and we must all be affected by it. There is a hold-up of food production as a result of the war, and there is an increasing world population. The less highly developed countries are now less ready to suffer privations than before the war, and they are demanding their right to a fair share of the world's supplies. The fact that the average age of death in New Zealand was 67, whereas in some Eastern countries until recently it was nearer 30, shows how bad must have been the living conditions in those countries and how short they were of food. As a country, we

must not be too greedy. We must take account of the needs of other countries, and not demand more than our fair share of the world supplies.
The question that now arises is how we are faring. By rationing of food we have provided to some extent fair shares for all, and by food subsidies on some of the most important foods we have been able to ensure that these foods are within the reach of even the poorest section of the community. Since the war and during the war great things have been happening in the distribution of food, as compared with pre-war. About one-fifth of the people are now getting less food than before the war, and about two-fifths are about the same, but the remaining two-fifths, who were very badly fed before the war, are now receiving much more food. As a result, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley) has pointed out, the health of our people has, on the whole, been extraordinarily well maintained.
I am not forgetful that at the present moment there is a very high incidence of tuberculosis, but this is probably due to the fact that the disease is much more frequently recognised than it was before the war. There is no clearevidence that the death rate from tuberculosis is increasing. It is the death rate that is the really important guide as to. the nutrition of the people. During the first world war, Denmark which we all know is a great country for producing milk, bacon and milk products, exported a great deal of its food. Then, in 1917, with the intensification of the submarine campaign, these exports suddenly ceased. The result was that whereas before 1917 the death rate from tuberculosis steadily went up, after these exports ceased the death rate rapidly went down.
Some 2½ years ago, as Members will remember, there appeared a letter in one of the lesser-known medical journals, called "Dying England." It was written by Dr. Bicknell. It began by saying "England is dying from starvation." This article was hailed as a godsend by Members opposite, and was quoted throughout the country. I very much doubt whether Members opposite maintain today that England is a dying nation, because today the health of our people is better than it has ever been.
I believe that the most important factor is food supplies. I have been most interested in reading the White Paper on Food Consumption Levels in the United Kingdom. On the whole, it is most reassuring. However, I am a little unhappy about two things. I am wondering whether we are getting quite enough vitamins and fats. I learn from this document that the fats we are now obtaining are some 16 per cent. below pre-war.
The one thing we must all be very glad about is the satisfactory condition of the milk supplies. We are now drinking 55 per cent. more liquid milk than pre-war. I am quite ready to admit that this is in part due to the fact that milk is no longer used to the same extent in making butter and cheese, but there is no doubt that from the dietetic point of view it is much more economical to drink liquid milk than to turn milk into butter, cheese and cream. We must be grateful in these days to the domestic cow, which is able to produce from grass or hay, containing no fat whatsoever, butter fat in great quantity. The domestic cow must form a good example to the groundnut scheme in efficiency.
I maintain that this document indicates very clearly that, except perhaps for vitamins and fats, we are doing very well and I am encouraged in that view by the experience of Switzerland during the war. In 1940, Switzerland, a country of four million people, surrounded by countries at war, with whom it was difficult to trade, came to the conclusion that they were likely to be very short of food. They set up a Federal Commission on Food under the chairmanship of Professor Fleisch. They determined on strict rationing. They had black bread in rationed quantities and—I would stress this—one and a half pounds of meat a month, an occasional egg and very little milk.
But what they did was to develop their fruit and vegetable growing industry. When I went there for the first time after the war, in 1946, I was impressed by the number of young fruit trees which had been recently planted, and the excellent quality of fruit as well as the large quantity of vegetables that had been grown. People then got a good deal of green vegetables and they had, roughly, about one pound of potatoes a day per head. The total number of calories

right through the war years in Switzerland averaged only 2,160, compared with our present day calorie figure of 2,980.
The result of this was that there was no deterioration of health at all; there was a slight increase of indigestion and influenza, but there were no epidemics of disease, and much less appendicitis. People were strong and healthy, and the increase of weight and height in the children was greater than ever before. Professor Fleisch put this down to the absence of meat in large quantities and to the large quantity of vegetables eaten during the war and also to the frequent meals, of small amount.
I wish we were taking more fresh fruit in this country. According to the figures in the report on the Food Consumption Levels in the United Kingdom we have increased our vegetable supply, compared with pre-war, by 10 per cent., but have reduced by 8 per cent. the amount of fruit which is eaten. I wish my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would assure the House that we are doing all we can to increase the quantity of vegetables and fruit used in this country. I hope she is exercising her mind about the marketing of these important food products, because to my knowledge apples were rotting on trees and on the ground in the countryside this year. Even the apples which had been gathered could not be sold at any price at all. These are such valuable protective foods, containing vitamins in some quantity, that I ask my right hon. Friend whether something cannot be done to increase the supply of these to the general public.
This report, which was placed in our hands a few days ago, shows that thanks to the excellent work of the Ministry of Food the amounts of necessary foods provided for ordinary people in this country are approximately what they need and that they have a fair share of the foods that are available to the world today.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has addressed his mind to this problem from the medical point of view in which he is well versed. I was concerned, however, when he seemed to recommend to this country a diet under which we would eat less meat. He said that this was a reassuring document, but I am wondering


whether it is not a little too reassuring. Comparing it with the last document produced by the Ministry of Food on food consumption, which was for 1947, we find that the British people are eating 20 lb. less meat per head per year. We do not need to copy what Switzerland did during the war through force of circumstances, because the results now show that Switzerland has had to change her policy entirely.
We here in this country are eating 40 lb. a head less than before the war, and that is a serious deficiency, especially hard on the working population. In my constituency it is not easy at the present time for agricultural workers to do a full day's work on the small amount of meat which they get. The right hon. Lady who is to reply to the Debate, will no doubt say that they are getting extra cheese. The cheese which she looks on with such favour is inadequate after a hard day's work, and we have to remember, too, that the extra cheese only comes at certain times in the year.
The other part of our diet with which I am concerned is sugar. It is very unsatisfactory today that we are eating 18 lb. less per head of sugar. If we as a nation could increase our meat and sugar supplies, there would be a tremendous increase in production by all members of the community. What are other countries doing in this respect? In meat before the war Denmark was the only country that ate more meat than we did. Now not only Denmark but Switzerland, France and Sweden are all able to eat more meat. I think I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite remark "Only certain sections." May I remind him of his own document.

Dr. Haden Guest: rose —

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me I want to answer a remark made sotto voce by an hon. Member opposite. As I was saying, I would remind the hon. Gentleman of his own document. It is entitled "Fact" and is a Labour Party bulletin for October, 1949. It has examined this question of meat, and it says there:
Although the consumption of meat in most continental countries is still below its pre-war level, only in the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, and Bizonia has consumption fallen to a relatively greater extent than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hastings: What is that quotation from?

Mr. Turton: I am quoting from" Fact," which is amongst the bulletins issued by the Labour Party, and it is one to which I am sure the hon. Member for Barking will attach some importance. Only in those four countries is the position worse, and while I do not want to introduce the word "indictment" into this Debate, surely it goes to show that it is a cause of great concern to this country that other parts of Europe are getting better meat rations than we in this country at the present time. I do not know if the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) wants to put his question now?

Dr. Guest: I wanted to ask the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), which was, from what was the hon. Gentleman quoting?

Mr. Turton: I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied because this is a monthly bulletin of his party called "Fact."

Dr. Guest: I would prefer a medical publication.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman has got an easy remedy. He can leave the Labour Party and form a medical party of his own.
Why is it these other countries are doing better in meat than this country? The fact from which we cannot get away is that all the countries used Marshall Aid dollars for obtaining feedingstuffs. but the British Government have stated that that is not a course which they can recommend. So far as I know—and we have been asking questions in this House about it up to now—the British Government have not used any Marshall Aid dollars for feedingstuffs. It was in July, 1948, that the policy of the British Government in this matter was given to us by the Minister of Food, whose absence from today's Debate owing to sudden departure we all note, and which some of us may regret. He said:
"I had a calculation made, and it is the case today that for every £ spent on the importation of coarse grains we get only about a third as much meat—animal protein—as for a £ spent on importing meat … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 879-90.]
That policy, in my view, decided the attitude of the present Government to-


wards this question of future meat supplies, and because they did not import feedingstuffs, we are now feeling the effect in the fall in consumption of 40 lb. per head compared with pre-war years.
It is a very serious position when we look at the actual feedingstuffs situation. I do not like boring the House with statistics, but I should like to give these figures and the House can see the matter in its true perspective. Taking the main cereal feedingstuffs of barley, oats and maize, in pre-war days we used to import some 3¼ million tons during the first 10 months of the year. I have to use the period of 10 months in order to get comparable figures. In 1948 we imported two million tons; this year 950,000 tons. In other words, we are getting only half as much cereal feedingstuffs as we did last year, and our present figure is less than one-third of what it was pre-war. I do not attach too much importance to cereal feedingstuffs. We have to look at the protein feedingstuffs and see what the position is there. We used to import before the war 1½ million tons of protein feedingstuffs. In 1948 we imported 700,000 tons, which is less than half, and this year it is down to 500,000 tons, or less than one-third of what it used to be. That is the reason at the present time for the great shortage of meat in this country.
It is not only a question of imports. I do not think the people of this country realise that the fall has been far greater in home-produced meat than in imported meat. The figures show that pre-war we slaughtered 400,000 more cattle, 4 million more sheep and 4 million more pigs. We get the figures from the statistical summary which show where the failure is and the short fall in imports is about 223,000 tons. The short fall in home-produced meat is something in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 tons. As I see it, we have got to tackle this problem and put it right. Sir Henry Turner, in a speech at the farmers club last week, said we required in order to feed our people properly an extra 600,000 tons of meat. I ask the Government to devise a policy that will secure an extra quantity of meat.
Let me deal first of all with imports. I am not satisfied that we could not get more meat imported into this country.
I should like the right hon. Lady to explain something that has puzzled many, many people. When we are supposed to be so short of imported meat how is it that we are able to store meat at a cost of £3 10s. per ton in 13 liners, and in addition are, I imagine, using the 30 new cold stores which were built during the war as well as in the great bulk of the cold storage capacity of this country? I believe that we could get more meat from abroad and turn it over more quickly. I personally believe—this is the only part of what I have to say to which some hon. Members opposite may take violent objection—that State trading is hampering the business of getting meat. I believe that if we gave British meat buyers greater freedom of buying, within certain—

Mr. Arthur Allen: If we gave them enough dollars.

Mr. Turton: I am not talking about dollars. If they were told to spend "so much," I believe that we would get more meat for the country. It is wrong that these British buyers can, and do, buy meat for every other country in the world, but not for Britain.
Let me leave what is probably the more contentious part of my subject and get to the part on which I believe I shall get more agreement. We have to see that 400,000 extra cattle are produced in this country. This is a task on which all parties must give their co-operation and advice. I am sure that among the 16 million acres now classed as marginal land, we could obtain some 1,500,000 acres to produce those 400,000 cattle. What is required is assistance and encouragement, not as in the present marginal grant scheme merely for annual expenditure, but for putting down great covered yards in those marginal areas, for encouragement to farmers to produce cattle at a rather younger age than they do at present, and for the diversion of some of the upland farms from milk production to beef.
Let us see exactly what is going to happen. The hon. Member for Southwestern Norfolk (Mr. Dye), who is showing great interest in what I say, will know the position. By 1951 we shall have all the liquid milk, and more, than we require. Then we shall have to make a decision whether we are going in for


manufacturing milk or for beef. What is the position? The upland farmers have probably a yield of something in the region of 450 gallons of milk per cow. I believe it would be far better if they were to go in for large-scale beef production.

Mr. Dye: rose —

Mr. Turton: I do not want to give way or to take up too much time. I know that the hon. Member will make a contribution to the Debate, and I shall listen to it with very great interest.

Mr. Dye: I only wanted to ask the hon. Member a question. Would he recommend a higher price for beef farmers as the only way of getting the policy he wants?

Mr. Turton: I am not talking about prices.

Colonel Stoddart-Scotf: Nutrition.

Mr. Turton: I believe that the February price review is the best way of getting the true relation between price and commodity. I am certain that there is great scope for the production of stores and beef in the upland areas where, at the present time, farmers are uneconomically producing milk. That is my belief, and other hon. Members can make their contributions on the point. It is clear that there are vast areas of England which at one time were occupied by farmers looking after cattle and were peopled so to speak by cattle, and which are now derelict. That is a great waste of a national asset and we should not tolerate it.
I would say a short word on sugar. At a time when world production is higher than it was before the war we are receiving less sugar in this country. Our ration has, in fact, been cut. I want to ask the right hon. Lady to explain why that is and why, at the producers' conference, when the West Indians said that with a guarantee they would largely increase their production, they have been very disappointed? I am certain that if we wished we could produce far more meat and far more sugar. [Interruption.] I would ask hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House to try to bring less party politics and more unity into this question of getting more meat

and more sugar. [Laughter.] I have tried very hard to avoid making any attack upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. I could do so if I wished, but I believe this matter is vitally urgent for the future of this country. I believe that the time has come when we should call a conference of home and Empire farmers together on the question of securing more meat and more sugar. Just as our farmers receive a guaranteed price from the February price review, so I believe we could work out a guaranteed price for Empire and home farmers. I hope that the Government will act quickly in this matter.

4.57 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) except to make one or two comments on what he said. To begin with, he states that the document before us is a little too reassuring. I dare say that statistics, however accurately presented, can be twisted to some extent and that one cannot pay too much regard to statistics, however well they are presented. In the years before the war, if such a document as this had been brought forward to us we should not have felt we could rely upon its figures, because the average consumption per head of the population of butchers' meat—about which the hon. Member has just expressed so great a concern—simply meant that some were able to hog at the table and others got nothing at all. That is why I think that this document is a little more reassuring, because the change that has taken place in the nation ensures that of butchers' meat, each shall have his or her fair share.
I was a little dismayed to hear the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) tell us how the mothers could have the dripping for their children in the old days. It reminded me of the story of the lady belonging to the party opposite, who went round during the First World War telling the women what good soup could be made from a cod's head. At question time at one of her meetings an old lady very timorously arose and said, "We are making soup from the cod's head, but who is getting away with the cod?" When the noble Lady talked of the dripping that was available, I wondered who was getting away with the sirloin.
On reading this document we can at least say that the average distribution is much fairer and that we really can place emphasis on the "average." The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) must have missed this very important sentence in the document:
The change in the composition of the national diet so far as its energy value is concerned since 1946 may be summed up by saying that the rise in the consumption of butter, margarine, lard and sugar has made good the loss of calories resulting from a reduced meat consumption.
When I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite talk, as they so often do, about the grand time that people are having in other countries, I wonder where they make their habitation when they visit those countries. Many people visiting this country and knowing of nothing other than the Dorchester, the Mayfair and so on, can can go back saying what a marvellous country Great Britain is.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: This has been said so often that it really warrants an answer. When we travel to other countries we do not rely only on our own experiences. We go round asking questions of the people in their homes. I lived for six weeks in the Baltic on a small boat. My wife has shopped in exactly the same way as any other housewife would have shopped in Denmark, Sweden and Schleswig-Holstein, and there was no question whatever that from the points of view of price, amount and quality in their ordinary cottage homes those people were living far better than people in England.

Mrs. Mann: My reply to that is that I have been in Norway, Sweden, France and Switzerland, and I have repeated my visits to some of those countries. I have gone at my own expense, which will show hon. Members that I had to live rather humbly and among the people of those countries. I wonder how much butter mothers are able to purchase in France when it is 7s. 6d. a pound against 1s. 6d. here. How much butter are my Scotswomen in Norway—they are married to Norwegians and I have met them—purchasing there? They tell me they are purchasing none because it is 5s. a pound. They tell me that they seldom get eggs and that they get butchers' meat perhaps once in six weeks. How much do the

peasant people of Switzerland get? I will tell hon. Gentlemen—an amount corresponding to the number of nylons a British woman gets in relation to exported nylons. In Switzerland everything is also for export. Even in Switzerland butter is 5s. a pound—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Per kilo.

Mrs. Mann: Not per kilo. On my last visit to Switzerland I felt tempted to bring back some food, but when I learnt that tea was 12s. a pound and butter 6s. a pound—at that date—not per kilo but per pound—I can assure hon. Members that I brought back a very small parcel indeed. However, I do not intend to allow the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) to take my speech from me through his interruption.
While this document is very important and statistically correct, and while we are all very anxious that our people shall have a very high standard of nutrition, we have to avoid malnutrition, and that is what we must set ourselves against in future. I consider that the more money we leave in the hands of people the less fear there is of malnutrition. Unlike hon. Members opposite, who seem to place a great deal of importance on the amount of the supply, I think that more important is the availability of the supply to the people. The supply has been more available to the people in the last two years than ever it was in the past.
The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke about mothers and their children. Never before has a baby come into the world without some preparation in the way of saving for months beforehand for the doctor's fee. Miners have told me how they had to put half-crowns into a dish for months beforehand and then, when they had gathered a little pile, unemployment might occur and absorb what they had saved for the arrival of the baby. Now a young mother can go into hospital for her confinement and all the fees are paid for her.
Even national dried milk of excellent nutritional value is provided for the baby at 10½ d. a tin. Hon. Members opposite would like to claim credit for all these things—I grant that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is interested


in the milk scheme—but I would point out that there used to be distinctions between the children obtaining the milk. What was said was, "Your father is unemployed and therefore you do not pay. Your father is employed and you pay." There grew up among the children a shrinking from taking the milk if their father was unemployed because getting it free seemed to mark them out from the children whose fathers were able to pay for the milk. Believe me, among themselves young children can be pretty good snobs. It was the late Ellen Wilkinson who announced from this Front Bench that on and after 7th August, 1946, all children would have milk as a natural right.
I wonder if hon. Members opposite will be able to continue our achievements, because I know that all the factors which influenced malnutrition are with them. For instance, if the rents go up, is there not likely to be less available money to spend in the shops? Will not all the people who want to raise the rents of properties and amend the Rent Restriction Acts, support hon. Members opposite?

Lieut-Colonel Walter Elliot: What about the local authorities.

Mrs. Mann: And all the old ladies who hate free milk in the schools and have always told us that it is wasted by the teachers. Will they also support hon. Members opposite? And are not all the people who think our food too cheap and who want the subsidies to go—as the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir) wrote in an article the other day—the many hon. Members opposite, who have told us they want the food subsidies to go, and all the people who want food to rise 100 per cent. in price—will they support hon. Members opposite at the poll?
How then can they square their pretence of wishing to see a continuance of the virility of the children and the mothers of our nation with what we know they actually stand for? I would hesitate to say to hon. Members opposite that they would be so cruel as to wish for unemployment, but statements have been made here and there which lead us to believe that there are many in their ranks, and many supporting them, who feel that a

little competition—11 men for 10 jobs-would be a good thing. If we are to have that, how can we have a full policy of nutrition? How can hon. Members opposite criticise this document or anything else that this Government has done?

5.12 p.m.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) because she has made a speech which she will give 40 or 50 times at the General Election. However, I agree with her in welcoming this Command Paper and the information it gives. I am glad that it does not say too much about calories because they can be muddling things, just as they have muddled the hon. Member for Coatbridge. After all, they are only a way in which to measure the energy value of food. One cannot get any nourishment out of calories any more than one can get nourishment out of a tape measure. What is nourishing is a balanced diet.
It needs a certain number of calories to give an adequate diet, but it must be composed of all the necessary things, such as fats, sugar, carbohydrates, proteins, salts and vitamins. If there is any deficiency in one of those things, one will not get a well nourished body or good nutrition, no matter how many calories there are. One could give a diet of double the number of calories we are getting at present but, if there is a deficit of carbohydrates or fat, they will result in the death of the individual and not in a healthy body.
The pattern we have developed in this country over many years has provided a diet suitable for the climatic conditions and the industrialisation that we have here, and this Command Paper shows certain deficiencies in that diet as well as certain additions to it. I shall deal first with the additions which, in respect of calcium and iron, are extraordinarily good, and I hope will so continue. The Mellanbys who between the wars worked in Sheffield, found that there was a great deficiency of calcium in the diet of our children and nursing mothers—in fact of everybody. And calcium was first added to the diet of our school children and nursing mothers by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and by Sir Kingsley Wood in the milk scheme.
The good teeth of our young people and their continued increase in weight and height, and also the fact that there is no rickets in this country is chiefly due to the work of the Mellanbys and the help given by the then Minister and by every Minister of Health since. However the present Minister of Health, by destroying the priority scheme, has done his best to do some harm to the teeth of the children. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."]
I remember during the war seeing in a flour mill, shovels of calcium being added to every sack of flour. I believe that is still going on. When one of my constituents complained that he thought flour was being adulterated by chalk, I wrote to the right hon. Lady and I received from her a most remarkable reply which was almost equal to the judgment of Solomon. She said that it was not being adulterated by chalk but fortified by calcium.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): indicated assent.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: As regards grave defects, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned our losses in vitamins, fruit, animal fats and animal proteins. If we are to get the most nutritional and attractive diet, we must have more meat, more animal fats, and more animal proteins. It is essential to make the diet attractive because, however good food is, if it is unattractive and not eaten it can be of no value whatever.
The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley) mentioned some vital statistics in speaking about the infantile mortality figures and the maternity mortality rate. We all rejoice that these rates come down every year, but the hon. Lady said that this was the best year for both rates. As a matter of fact, the hon. Lady could have said exactly the same thing every year in this House. She ought to have mentioned other factors which have helped to make that rate come down. Not only food but also—

Mrs. Mann: May I—

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Lady has spoken in the Debate and there is not much time. Penicillin and sulph-onilamide have made their contribution to the constant downward trend of those rates.
The hon. Member for Barking, who made a useful and constructive contribution to this Debate, spoke about tuberculosis. There is no doubt that the tuberculosis death rate in England and Wales is slightly declining at the moment, in which we all rejoice, but the rate of notification of that disease is increasing and this should cause us all much concern. When one comes to Scotland, one finds that the mortality rate there is increasing—

Mrs. Mann: It is not true.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: —and the Secretary of State has set up a commission to investigate the increase. Although there has been an increase in tuberculosis notification in this country, we find that in France, where no food is rationed, the curve has already started to go down, not only in mortality but also in notifiable T.B. Then, since the war we have had in this country two of the worst epidemics of infantile paralysis we have ever had. There has been little research into that disease, and I ask the right hon. Lady whether she thinks diet has anything to do with infantile paralysis? In her view, could the shortage of animal proteins and fats have anything to do with those epidemics?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the infantile paralysis figures for the United States are much greater per 1,000 of the population than they are here, and yet in the United States there is ample food?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I know that, but there is evidently some factor in this country which has caused us to have two epidemics as suddenly as that, and within such a short time and to such a great extent. I want to know if food has anything to do with this. I hope that consideration will be given also to the question of food poisoning. We have never had so many refrigerators as we have today. Whilst the handling of food is not in any way ideal, it is certainly better than in the past, yet we have never had as much food poisoning as we have at present. Does the right hon. Lady think that this is because nowadays food is probably more adulterated than in the past; or can she give us any other reason?
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the calorific value of the diets which heavy workers—farm workers, miners and bricklayers—are now getting. Does she think that they are getting a big enough diet for the hard work they have to do? Is the lower production in the pits and in building in any way due to the fact that these workers require more food?

Mr. Pryde: That is not a statement of fact. The annua] report of the National Coal Board for 1948 shows clearly in its first page that the output per man-shift has been recovered as compared with pre-war.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I know of that statement, but with what year are the figures being compared: with 1938, 1942, or when? It should not be overlooked that there is now a greater amount of mechanisation, which should have made output go up out of all proportion.
The right hon. Lady will say that the nutrition and health of our people are good, but I believe that both could be better. In every country outside the Iron Curtain rationing has now been swept away, and I am quite sure that if we get rid of rationing, as we must at some early date, and if the private trader is allowed to go out and buy the foods which our people need, not only will nutrition improve but the health of our people will improve also.

5.23 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this important Debate. My interjection about medical statistics was due to the fact that this Debate is one which pre-eminently ought to be kept as far above the ordinary party level as possible. This is a matter with which every citizen and every Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House he sits, is intimately concerned.
I want to draw attention to the fact that the White Paper on "Food consumption levels in the United Kingdom"—I have heard all the speeches up to now, but as far as I am aware, this fact has not been mentioned—sets out the position regarding the distribution, and not the consumption, of food. It shows what food is available. It must be remembered that the present situation with

regard to what food is consumable, is very different from what it was in, for instance, the inter-war years. In those years there was food for those who could buy it, but there were Very large numbers of people who could not buy it because they did not have the money. That is a very vital difference between then and now.
Take, for instance, the well-known fact that in the early part of this century a very great deal of poverty, malnutrition and disease arose from these conditions of poverty, and that now, when everyone, because we have for all intents and purposes full employment, has the money with which to make purchases, those conditions do not arise in the same way. Having the money to buy the food is just as important as having the food available.
Listening to the speeches this afternoon I could not help feeling that some hon. Members, at any rate, do not realise how very poor were many of our people in the inter-war years. I remember a little street called Ethelm Street, behind the Union Jack Club, opposite Waterloo Station. Possibly by this time that street has been renamed or there has been a reconstruction; I have not been there for a year or two. When I used to be a school doctor in that neighbourhood before the First World War and visited people in that street, it was commonplace to see children running about in no other clothing than a shirt and to go into houses and find the utmost destitution and poverty inside. As far as I am aware, those conditions are not now found anywhere in the London area. Conditions of that kind are a measure of the poverty which then existed.
At that time I was one of the first people in London to conduct a food experiment in the Addington Street school for the London County Council. A very large proportion of the children were extraordinarily badly fed. When they were given good food they did not at first know how to digest it, and actually for the first week or two went down in weight and not upward. Those conditions help to illustrate the distance we have since travelled.
Much of the London County Council school feeding which has been done in past years has had admirable results. I wish to point out the changing conditions


over the years and to remind hon. Members of the reports of the investigation carried out by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree and recorded in his extraordinarily valuable book, "Poverty and Progress." Let me give a quotation relating to the conditions of people in the town of York, whose position was paralleled, unfortunately, in many towns and villages all over the country, in those not so long ago days of the 1930's. The book was published in 1935. This is what Mr. Rowntree said:
Thirty per cent. of the workers have incomes so small that it is beyond their means to live even at the stringently economic level adopted as a minimum in this survey…. Almost half the children of working-class parents spend the first five years of their lives in poverty and almost a third of them live below the poverty line for ten years or more.
Those conditions have now disappeared—I hope, permanently.
In 1935, in the area where my duties as a candidate took me in the county of Brecon, I inquired what amount of meat the miners were then getting. I was told that the weekly joint for the families of miners in many homes cost 1s. 6d. They certainly did not have a very large quantity of meat, and to some of them no doubt this represented the dinner they had on Sunday.
How different are conditions today. Young people of the generation of the 1920's can hardly believe how badly placed were their parents in the years which have gone. Within a few years the young people will look back on records and such things as medical reports of school doctors, the reports of Mr. Seebohm Rowntree's book and things of that kind, almost as fairy tales; yet they are true, and those conditions might even return if the deplorable advice given by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) were taken and food rationing was abolished. Food rationing, price control and strict control are absolutely essential in order to maintain the nutrition of this country at the proper level. We do not live in a vacuum; we live in a world in which there are patches of poverty where the demand for food is much greater than here.
I was talking to an eminent Indian statesman not long ago—it was a private meeting—and he said to me, "How

wonderful it is that during this first year of the liberation of India we have been able to give all the people of India a handful of rice every day, and that there has been no famine." Think of the difference between that level and the level at which the people of this country live. We are living at a very high standard of nutrition. The vigour and vitality of the nation are very great, and food rationing, price control and subsidies are all necessary in order to maintain that standard. The policy is a very good one, and I believe that the results, as shown in this White Paper on Food Consumption Levels in the United Kingdom are of the utmost possible importance.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if she can answer one or two questions. Can she say what is the condition of different groups of the population as regards nutrition, and, if that is not known, could a survey be made to determine it? As to the condition of the children, I do not think there is much doubt about that being very good. Could she also say what is the condition of workers in factories, in agriculture, and, particularly, the condition of old people and sick people living on pensions and allowances, either in their own homes, in institutions, or who are being looked after by relations? Is there a difference between the workers in the towns and in the countryside?
I want to have the technique of the Rowntree investigation of York applied to other sections of the population in order that we may get a view, not only of distribution, but of the effects of consumption. I believe it would show that the people of this country are at a higher standard of nutrition than the people of any other country in Europe, and that that high standard can gradually be increased in future as the admirable policy of this Government over the years produces even better results than it has up to the present time.'

5.33 p.m.

Commander Maitland: The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) finished on a note which I hesitate to call complacency, although it might almost be called that because he said that the standard of nutrition would be likely to increase. I want to call the attention of the House to the recent interim


report issued by the Food Committee of O.E.E.C. on the food position of the world, particularly as it affects Great Britain and the West. The report makes it perfectly clear that if we are to maintain even our present standard of life we must double the food production of this country and of Western Europe. That is the challenge we have to meet, and it is a very serious challenge. There is no ground whatever for complacency by any party in the State. This is a very important subject, and I agree that it goes far beyond party prejudices.
There are three small points I wish to make. The first is that many hon. Members have referred to the fairness of rationing. But there is one section of the community—and in my opinion, perhaps the most important section—to whom that fairness is not really so apparent. I refer to the housewife and the mother of children because, as a father and as a husband I know—and I am perfectly certain other hon. Members will agree with me—that it is always the mother who gives up her food to the children, and, quite often, to her husband. If there is one person in the community who is not getting a fair deal under the rationing system it is the housewife and mother in this country.
Secondly, I want to put in a plea—as I have done before—for the agriculture worker. It is a special plea, but those who live in the towns must remember that the agricultural worker does not get the advantages of factory canteens, and the like. Therefore, I think it is only fair that he should be allowed to draw such extra rations as he may have himself. I should also like to ask the right hon. Lady to see if in the country districts she cannot improve the distribution and selectivity- of these particular rations for the hard-working men in the agricultural industry.
Finally, whatever the nutrition standard is today, we need a change in our diet; we need something a little more exciting. During the war we found, when we wanted to give a little bit of incentive and encouragement to our fighting men, that if we gave them exciting kinds of food—that is, in the gastronomic sense, of course—it made them feel fit again. I hope that can be done. Surely, one way in which it could be done, even if we cannot provide extra rations, is by better

cooking. On that simple plea, which is certainly a non-party point—and I hope my wife will not be angry with me for making it—I shall conclude my speech. I believe that if we could only manage to improve the standard of cooking in this country we might then, perhaps, enjoy our food as well as just eat it.

5.36 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: We have had not only an interesting Debate, but a businesslike Debate in which the speeches have been commendably short, and I shall do my best to follow that example. Perhaps it is due to the fact that we have had several of the ladies speaking, and, contrary to what is usually said by unkind critics, if we want a really long-winded speaker in this House we shall never find one with long hair and skirts.
I say that it has been an interesting Debate because a number of interesting aspects of this matter have been broached, and also because hon. Members have been—I think with great success—attempting to avoid the more blatant forms of electoral argument, which are a great temptation to us all, because with the approach of the Election the desire to put one's best case forward from the party point of view is almost insuperable. But as was said by several hon. Members, this matter transcends many of the issues we shall have to raise on the hustings
The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Guest) was very obviously torn between the two points of view. His sentiments were most admirably expressed—his desire for a non-party line or argument—in the opening sentences of his speech, but I am afraid that the Old Adam rather got the better of him towards the end of his remarks. If the same thing happens in my case, I trust that the House will regard it with toleration because I am a naturally argumentative sort of person, and this is a subject in which I take a very great deal of interest.
I think we were all indebted to the hon. Lady the Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley) for her opening remarks. If I may say so, I thought she chose a somewhat awkward example from the point of view of her own case in quoting a young Dutchman whom she had met on the train. I was looking up the Dutch vital statistics, and really they do not


bear out the suggestion that all the food in Holland is only eaten by very rich people who can afford to go to great lengths on the black market. Otherwise, the whole of Holland must consist of such persons. The vital statistics of Holland are not only resplendent, but show a very great improvement on those of almost all other countries in Europe in recent years. The Dutch birthrate, which in 1943 was 23, is today 27.8—a great deal above anything that we can show. The Dutch death rate, which was 10 in 1943, is 8.1, and the Dutch tuberculosis rate, which was 70 in 1943. is 37 today.
These points show that whatever the nutrition policy of Holland may be, it has not been unsuccessful, because if we could show such results we should be justifiably proud. It is not possible to suggest that the food system of all other countries has been unsuccessful because the figures for many other countries show very great advances in the post-war years. It is in fact a common phenomenon of the post-war years in Western Europe that there has been a recovery. There has been a striking recovery in respect of many forms of illness, particularly tuberculosis, to which I would particularly draw the attention of the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) because she, too, lapsed a little from the strict line of absolute non-party objectivity to which it has been suggested we should address ourselves.

Mrs, Mann: May I express the hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will quote the latest figures of the mortality rate for tuberculosis?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Indeed I will. The hon. Lady is very rash. I shall also quote some of the figures from other countries and the figures, say, of the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, who is unfortunately absent from our counsels. I shall quote many things. There are many crows which I wish to pick with the hon. Lady but I shall refrain. I shall not descant on the housing situation in Glasgow and how much better it would have been had she, during her term in Glasgow, maintained the housing rate which the Moderates maintained when they were in office.

Mrs. Mann: I think that the figures will show that during my period of con-

venership of housing, I completed 4,000 houses a year, and that the average for the 15 years before my convenership was 2,500.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady forgot to say that the figure of the outgoing Moderates was 6,000 houses per year, and that the 4,000 houses per year which she completed was due to the hangover—the run-off—of the Moderate programme, and that as soon as it ran off the figure fell to some 2,500 houses.

Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how the figures for housing rose under a Government that took away the Wheatley Act?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Surely the hon. Lady is not going to say that the whole of Glasgow Corporation was dancing attendance at the beck and call of any Government whatever, any more than was the L.C.C. when the present Lord President of the Council took vigorous action in the case of Waterloo Bridge? However, this is a Debate not on housing but on nutrition, and I think I have dealt quite sufficiently with the hon. Lady so far as housing is concerned.
I now turn to some of the other points about which she seems to be anxious. Let us take some of the matters which she was pressing so vigorosly upon the House. There are the statistics in relation to schoolchildren. I have here a very interesting book which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will not, in your neutral position, have seen—the "Speakers' Handbook" of the Labour Party. It draws attention to the improvement in heights and weights of the schoolchildren in Glasgow, which will be a subject not unfamiliar to the hon. Member for Coatbridge. These illustrate very well the continuity of the progress which has been made during recent years, which is the argument I intended to bring forward. This continuity of progress was stressed by my noble Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson). It is well worth stressing and repeating that the whole of that credit is certainly not due to one party or the other; it is due to long-continued efforts extending over many years.
When I find this little book emphasising so strongly the improvement in heights and weights of Glasgow children in the years 1938-48, I am very glad to note that


such an improvement has taken place. The five-year-olds are one inch higher and two pounds heavier and the 13-year-olds are one and a half inches higher and seven pounds heavier. Hon. Members opposite are of course entitled to rejoice, as are we, at these figures, but it is a pity that we could not get the same exuberance and enthusiasm from them in the years 1928-38. The five-year-olds during that period were 1.1 inches higher and 1.3 lb. heavier; the 13-year-old boys were 1.2 inches higher and 4 lb. heavier, and the girls—this will be of special interest to the hon. Lady—were 2.3 inches higher and 8.7 lb. heavier. I simply say that these figures are evidence of a continuing improvement. It is very rash of any particular party to try—to use the hon. Lady's vigorous expression—to "hog" the whole of the credit for them.

Mr. Tiffany: Did not Lord Woolton, speaking at Leicester in 1944, state that, pre-war, one-third of the children were suffering from malnutrition? Is that the case now?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is quite wrong. He is quoting a certain echo from Lord Boyd Orr's book in which he pointed out how very great had been the improvement from 1935, when his first survey was made, to 1939, when his second survey was made. There are points in regard to which there has been a recession since that time, notably in respect of tuberculosis, on which I shall have something to say to the hon. Lady, who seems to challenge those figures.

Mr. Tiffany: I am speaking of Lord Woolton's speech.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I am under a pledge to leave the right hon. Lady at least half an hour in which to reply. I have done my best to squeeze up my remarks because of the interesting nature of the Debate, and I do not wish to spend too much time on interruptions such as that which the hon. Member has just made.
One of the strong points of the argument which has been brought forward is that a great improvement has taken place in the dairy produce side of our diet. It is admitted on all sides that our general diet is only just up to pre-war. Yet, as one of my hon. Friends has said, a much greater effort is being called for from

the people than was the case pre-war. On every side we are being adjured to work harder so there should be if anything a higher intake of food than we were getting before the war. In fact, it is just under that of pre-war and I think that most of us would say it is not equal in quality to the pre-war diet. That is one of the points which is generally conceded.
It is said, however, that there is a great improvement in the case of milk. The White Paper refers to an increase of consumption of liquid milk of 55 per cent. and of dairy products as a whole of 30 per cent. I am not quite sure whether that includes butter. It is well worth noting that the number of cows in milk has not greatly increased and that the production of milk in this country has really not increased substantially. All that milk was being consumed pre-war in some way or other.

Mr. Tiffany: By the pigs.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: No. The hon. Member is a little optimistic about the number of pigs in this country before the war. We had before the war, in 1933-39, 3,270,000 cows in milk, in 1945-46, about 3,540,000 cows in milk, and an output of milk in 1938-39 of 1,463,000 gallons, and in 1945-46, 1,444,000 gallons. It is true that a much larger amount of milk has been sold off the farms, but that is simply a statistical point. The annual output of milk has not, I think, increased so much as these figures in the White Paper would suggest and it is also true to say that some other valuable products have been lost.
It is not enough to say that butter has been substituted by that delightful category in the White Paper, "fats and oils." If any of us, having a bazaar in our constituency, put up a pound of butter for auction, we will have a very much more vigorous response than if we put up a pound of fat. The enthusiasm of the buying public is very much more marked in the one case than in the other, and its effect on production is also very much better.
Our calorie consumption is certainly high. It may be said to be adequate. It was 2,890 in 1948 and 2,998 in 1948-49. I was looking up some comparable figures from overseas. The Nigerian figures are 2,639 in Beda and 2,947 in Zuru. I apologise for mentioning these places, but they are on the other side of Africa


from the one where the dispute is going on just now. Still the Nigerian farmer has got 2,947 calories and it cannot be said that any effort is being exacted from him comparable to that which is being-exacted from the people of this country.
I think that a more generous as well as a more stimulating diet is certainly one of the desiderata. Any complacency, which was detected by certain speakers on this side in the speeches from the other side of the House, is out of place, so long as our diet remains as it is today. I do not wish to do more than mention that because the need for further stimulating foods, particularly meat, was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton).
I would say a little more however about disease and the mortality rate, for that is in a way the acid test of the whole thing. We can argue this way or that way on the adequacy of the diet and the lassitude or vigour of those engaged in it; but I quite agree that at the end of the day the vital statistics must be the final test. In fact hon. and right hon. Members are entitled to take credit for the falls in several of the figures. Some of them are however undoubtedly due to the very powerful new drugs which have been brought into play.
There are the sulfa drugs. The right hon. Lady will remember that long ago in the earliest of her days in the House, when our positions were reversed, we had some argument about whether the sulfa drugs were sufficiently accessible to the ordinary practitioners in their ordinary work. The right hon. Lady may have forgotten it, but it remains very sharply in my mind because I feared there were not enough of these medicaments being made available to our ordinary general practitioners. However, that has all passed. There is no doubt that these powerful drugs are in the hands of the ordinary medical men. and are making a great difference.
Some of the death rates which are certainly not affected by nutrition have fallen very sharply. In cerebro-spinal fever, for instance, the percentage of deaths to certifications was 50 per cent. in 1937 and fell to 18 per cent. in 1947. The percentage of deaths in pneumonia was 17 per cent. of notified cases in 1937

and it came down to 8.9 per cent. in 1945. The percentage death rate of puerperal sepsis, which was 15 per cent. in 1936, fell to 4.6 per cent. in 1945.
These facts of course undoubtedly have something to do with the fall in maternal mortality which has taken place though I think that hon. and right hon. Members are entitled to all the credit which this little book seeks to obtain for that. Again, the rate of infant mortality, for instance, fell between 1935 and 1938 by 7 per cent. and between 1945 and 1948 by 26 per cent. I say that that is a very great thing, for which we should all be grateful. I have the curve here with which I shall not weary the House—that steep fall seemed to begin about 1938, but we may say that the recovery to that steep decline after the interruption of the war years, was a great achievement. I give the Government full credit for it. But the contention which is advanced by many speakers that the whole of the credit is due to the Government is not borne out by the facts.
I have here a very interesting lecture, one of the Milroy lectures, given by a member of the Medical Research Council and published recently in the "British Medical Journal," showing a very remarkable clearing up of tuberculosis in Western Europe since, say 1921. The whole of the black areas, which were areas with a rate over 150 per 100,000 have been almost entirely swept away not merely in most of the Western European countries but in other countries. In the years around 1947 the fall in France particularly has been most spectacular. The rate of decline is greater almost there than anywhere else. The lecturer draws special attention to that and I think it shows that there are lessons to be learned from other countries as well.
These rapid falls which have taken place in other countries are worthy of our attention. What exactly they may be due to, I do not attempt to go into this evening in the short space of time which remains, because I wish to say a word about tuberculosis in our own country. Here again I quote the lecturer. He says:
Since 1941 the tuberculosis death rates in England and Wales have gradually declined though they have not reached the level that would have been expected if pre-war trends had continued uninterrupted.


That is in England and Wales. When he conies to Scotland, of course, he draws a picture with which we are all well acquainted, but which for some reason or other seems to be queried by the hon. Member for Coatbridge. He says:
The tuberculosis trends in Scotland merit particular study as this is the one country which after having been seriously affected by the war, has shown no improvement since the end of the war. There has even been a rise to a rate that was a peak during war time.
I hope that the hon. Lady does not query that.

Mrs. Mann: Yes. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself have both for a number of years been very greatly concerned with this subject and particularly its application to Scotland. Neither of us feels very proud of the situation, but I must quote from the latest figures of the Registrar-General on Scottish vital statistics published on the 9th of last month: The deaths from all forms of tuberculosis were 59 per 100,000, seven below that for the third quarter of 1948 and nine below the average of the best five years. For deaths from respiratory tuberculosis, the rate was 51—four below average; and for deaths from other forms of tuberculosis, it was eight—five below average.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken, first, in confusing the non-pulmonary and pulmonary rate and, secondly, in the undeniable fact that the trends had actually brought the tuberculosis rate in recent years in Scotland above the worst period of 1930-31.

Mrs. Mann: Early detection by mass radiography.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: No. We do not detect a corpse by mass radiography. Believe me, a corpse is not detected in that way at all.

Mrs. Mann: And a corpse is still a corpse, whether a person dies from respiratory, non-pulmonary or any other tuberculosis.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady is a little in error in this matter. She cannot get away with the argument that mass radiography is detecting corpses, because it is not. The death rate is the statistical figure for deaths, and the actual

deaths, even in England, remain remarkably high. The deaths in England and Wales in 1946 were 19,365; in 1947 they were 20,156; and in 1948, 19,087. In Scotland, as the hon. Lady well knows, the figures showed a steep and continuing rise and, what is more, they are terribly high as compared with many of the countries quoted by one of my hon. Friends whom the hon. Member for Coatbridge denigrated in rather an off-hand manner.
I promised to give the figures. The figure in Scotland in 1946 was 77; the figure in Amsterdam was 51; the figure in Copenhagen was 44; and the figure in Stockholm was 56. These were the Baltic countries. The hon. Lady said that my hon. Friend did not know anything about the life of the common people there. These are the death rates of the common people. When we come to the death rates for the constituency of the Minister of Food, in 1938 the figure was 82, and in 1946 it was 87.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the deaths in Scandinavian countries from respiratory tuberculosis have always been below the death rate in this country, at any rate for many years?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but I was quoting the fall. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the fall is important. In Copenhagen the figure is down from 51 to 44, and in Stockholm the figure is down from 94 to 56. In Dundee it had gone up from 82 to 87.

Mrs. Mann: What was it when—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I ought to point out to the hon. Lady that these interruptions delay the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which, I think, is timed to come to an end by arrangement.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I am most anxious to come to a conclusion. While I was Secretary of State for Scotland the figures were much lower, and the figures which I am quoting are figures which are worse than, those for 1931-32. But, Sir, I have been reminded—and I am indebted to you—that we are under a pledge to bring this discussion to a close in order to allow time for another discussion, which I must say, from every point of view, seems to me an infinitely


inferior one to that upon which we are now engaged. However, it no doubt attracts the House more. There is more of the cut and thrust of debate about it.
I only say that the figures in Britain show that many of the important curves of vital statistics have gone down, but that some of the significant curves have remained up; and that the figure for tuberculosis, in particular in Scotland, is higher than it ought to be if the only explanation of our good health was good rations and equal shares for all. It may not always be that equal shares for all are fair shares for all. I am sure that there is much heavy work done—more in the north than in the south—for which equal shares do not make an equal contribution to health.
I would say that the desire of the ordinary person for variety in his diet is a desire which should be acceded to, if possible; and that the desire of the people of this country for a high meat diet is one of their traditional desires which they have always exercised whenever they could. If we are to continue to progress, we must do our utmost to see that a more varied diet is available for the people and that, where it can, it moves towards the traditional high-protein, big-meat ration, and does not depend so much upon the large starch—the large carbo-hydrate-ration, upon which we are being adequately, though I think rather monotonously, maintained today.

6.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) warned the House that whereas many speakers had tried to address themselves to this question of nutrition in an objective manner he might find it difficult, because he was of a controversial nature, to rise above party polemics. There is no doubt that once again he has failed to be as objective as he would like to be on this last-but-one important Debate in this House before Christmas. He devoted a great deal of his time to looking up the handbook published by the Labour Party, quoting from it and trying to catch out my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). He should recognise, of course.

that these methods can be adopted by both sides.
I am afraid I have to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of something he said which, in my opinion, completely torpedoes the argument which he has just put forward about the tuberculosis mortality rate in Scotland which, he implies, must be related to the nutritional policy pursued by this Government. If he does not relate the high tuberculosis mortality rate in Scotland to the nutritional policy of this Government, then surely he should not have devoted most of the time in which he has spoken to that subject. This summer I took away for my holiday reading a copy of the "British Medical Journal" in which I found a very interesting and important article which, I understand, was recorded from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Presidential Address to the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. The address was given on Thursday, 26th May. The "British Medical Journal" has headed it:
Tuberculosis: Certain unexplained mortality figures.
I remember reading this very well, because I was by the seaside and I could just lie and digest these figures. I was most impressed. I found that this was an objective approach to a very important subject. My opinion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—we must have been many miles apart at that time—went up considerably.
This afternoon we have heard the same right hon. and gallant Gentleman come here and, in order to prove his argument to this House, and recognising as he does that he is for the most part talking to the lay public—there are perhaps only one or two people here who have read this article in the "British Medical Journal"—he advanced an argument trying to prove that the high tuberculosis rate in Scotland can be attributed to the nutritional policy of the Labour Government.
These are the conclusions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the high rate of tuberculosis in Scotland when he is speaking to a meeting of professional men who understand the question very well. Although I am left with only 20 minutes for my speech, I must say that it is in the interests of the whole country that I should read the conclusions of the


right hon. and gallant Gentleman's article because, I am most concerned with what those poor patients sitting in Scotland will think when they read his speech. I am also concerned since perhaps the reputation of my Department may be at stake. After this long speech, the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman are these:
Wild speculations may be made; they are as likely to be right, or at any rate to form as reasonable a point of departure, as any other at the moment. One speculation is that there may have been an introduction of a more active strain of infection into Scotland in the considerable Polish migration that took place in the early days of the war. It may not be so; but, at any rate, there certainly was a mass movement to our country of a population which in its own country is highly susceptible to tuberculosis and has a high tuberculosis rate—a population which afterwards was intermingled very intensively with the Scottish people. That may be an entirely erroneous line of inquiry. But when you are faced with an unexplained set of facts you must consider all the likely and all the unlikely explanations. It is possible that the unlikely explanations are quite as right as the likely explanations. Here, then, is a fascinating problem of public health to which no solution has yet been found. I commend it as an example of how today it is still possible to find unexplained problems, and of how it may be possible, by the use of intelligence and by industry, for any investigator to find an explanation of facts which so far have baffled everyone.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Lady allow me? We have had an opportunity of debating this question in the Scottish Grand Committee, where I approached it from the position that it was a nutritional weakness.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little weak. There he was, discussing a matter in front of professional people, and not for one moment did he advance this argument which he has advanced this afternoon. Therefore, I think he has been dishonest with the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Yes, professionally dishonest. I was hoping that he would come forward and address his professional mind to this document which we have before us—the White Paper on food consumption levels in the United Kingdom. This is a factual document, and we do not try to prove that at the moment the national diet is at its optimum.
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree, however, that the overall position has much improved. It is possible for anybody to examine this document and find gaps in it; I would not accept any statement to the contrary, but it is surely quite wrong for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deduce from the Scottish statistics what he has deduced today, considering that the statements in this scientific paper do not warrant those conclusions.
I want to say this, and I think it is rather important: Some of the figures in the White Paper have been interpreted wrongly. I think it would be for the benefit of the whole country if I were to show just how they have been mis-interpreted. One or two of the intelligent newspapers, I observe, have made mistakes, and I can understand how it is possible sometimes to confuse averages with specific allocations. For instance, one newspaper pointed out that, in Table IV, it is stated that boys of from 16 to 20 years should have 100 grammes of protein, whereas it is stated in Table III that the total amount of protein that they are receiving is 88.2. Well, of course, the 88.2 is an average, and the figure of 100 is not. The 88.2 in Table III should be compared with the 65, which is the average, in Table IV.
I have given this illustration in order that there shall be no confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the real meaning of some of these figures. Again, of course, calorie values can be confused. The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) explained in, I think, a rather elementary manner to the House, just what a calorie was, and later on asked me whether I thought the heavy workers were having a diet which, in terms of calories, was sufficient. He also must recognise that, if the calorie consumption averages 3,000 a day, and since perhaps a small child only requires a few hundred, the average figure of 3,000 must mean that the heavy workers are consuming something in the nature of 4,000 or 4,500 calories.
Now I come to the two gaps which I have already said can tasily be observed if anybody cares to analyse the figures. They might be described as the gaps in the consumption of sugar and meat. In the last three years, that is, years


1947-48-49, there has been a slight increase in sugar consumption, but hon. Members know full well, that we get our marginal supplies from dollar countries. I was very surprised that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should ask why we have not got more sugar. He has been present at Question Time and has in fact asked Questions himself, and he must have heard me, time after time, tell the House that we can get more sugar from Cuba, but that we have not the dollars with which to pay for it. He must also know that conversations have been taking place recently with Commonwealth representatives but have not fructified yet. I am quite unable to say what the future position will be, in answer to the hon. Member's question.
Again, he asks me about meat, and I am certainly not satisfied that all the meat that we should like to have is now available in this country. We should like to have more, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, while it is very important to produce more meat in this country, we always have had to import large amounts from other countries. The hon. Gentleman quoted conditions in certain European countries. He knows full well that those countries are self-sufficient so far as meat supplies are concerned. Our position is entirely different, and we are dependent on 6ther countries for much of our meat supplies.
I think it was significant that the hon. Gentleman asked me, "Why do we not buy more meat from abroad?" Once more, like other hon. Members who challenge this Government and ask us to buy more from abroad, he did not indicate where we were to get it from. We want to be told. We have a representative in every meat-producing country in the world, and they are out there trying to find available meat supplies which they can obtain for us. It is no good hon. Members getting up and saying, "We are not getting enough meat; why do you not buy more?" Let them tell us where to get it, and we will send a man out and see if it is really there. The truth is, of course, that it just is not there.

Mr. Turton: I think the right hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. I said that if, instead of her representatives, the private trader was allowed to buy the meat for this country, we should get more.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman had already mentioned in his speech the name of Sir Henry Turner, and he knows what the reputation of Sir Henry Turner is in the meat world. He was a private meat trader, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he has not changed and become now unable to make a good bargain.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the milk supply, and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities was quite right in saying that the production of milk has now increased very considerably, but we have, of course, been using some of it for cheese manufacture. Consumption is 55 per cent. greater than it was before the war, and it has been steadily increasing since 1940. I am very pleased to tell the House that a further improvement is expected in 1950. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite will be as interested as my hon. Friends behind me in a little survey we have made this year. We regard milk as of unique nutritional importance and are, therefore, very concerned whether it is consumed to the maximum and just where and to whom the milk goes. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of welfare schemes. This year we decided to carry out a survey of approximately 2,400 households, representative of all economic classes and the results are very striking.
It will be remembered that in that little classic, which has been mentioned so often today, "Food, Health and Income," by Lord Boyd Orr, it was stated that in the years 1932-35 the highest income groups of the population were drinking 5.4 pints per head, while the poorest had 1.1 pint.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Per week?

Dr. Summerskill: Per week. I should think the hon. Gentleman should know that, being a father of two.

Mr. Hogg: Three.

Dr. Summerskill: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his fertility. I am sure that in the circumstances he will be even more interested in milk.
In our study, which was made in May, 1949, when milk was unrestricted—the House will remember that it was unrestricted for 15 weeks this year—the range of consumption, we discovered, was


between six pints and four and a half pints per head per week as against 5.4 pints in the highest income groups in the 1930's and 1.1 pint in the lowest income groups. We discovered that while in the highest income groups of the population the consumption was 10 per cent. higher in May, 1949, than before the war, in the lowest income groups the liquid milk consumption has trebled since that time. I think that hon. Members and right hon. Members on both sides of the House must feel that this beneficial change in the consuming habits of the lowest income groups is something with which we must all be satisfied.
I now come to fats. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) who, I think the House will agree, made an excellent speech, asked whether I was satisfied as to the consumption of fats. No, as far as nutrition is concerned, it takes a lot to satisfy me. I should-certainly like to see more fats, but I would like my hon. Friend to know—and in this my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will bear me out—that a clinical survey has been made on this subject and there is no sign of there being a fat deficiency in this country. We have increased the fat ration and I am glad to say that in the case of butter, margarine, cooking and other fats which were at their lowest level in 1947 when the supply was something like 75 per cent. of prewar, the consumption was 90 per cent. of prewar for the year 1948-49 and, for the whole of 1949, it is 98 per cent. of prewar. I think the House will agree that this is a very satisfactory measure of progress.
I rather hesitate to mention butter and margarine, but the facts are that the country is consuming only half the amount of butter consumed before the war, but twice the amount of margarine. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley, who rather criticised, in a very pleasant way, a letter of mine in which I said that bread was fortified with calcium carbonate, will not criticise, but will probably agree, that it is good to have margarine fortified with vitamins A and D. Nutritionally, the margarine of today is infinitely superior to that rather evil-smelling, yellow grease which was used very many years ago.
There is evidence of a very interesting trend in regard to flour consumption

which is being replaced calorifically by the extra fats now available. Since July, 1949, flour consumption in this country has decreased by 6 per cent. It is interesting to note that, while flour consumption has decreased—and, by the way, that decrease is equivalent to 60 calories a day—the fat consumption has increased and the extra fat consumption is equivalent to 75 calories a day. In other words, there is evidence that the 60 calories which constitute the flour consumption have been replaced by fats consumption. I know that every doctor in this House will be very satisfied with that, because all will recognise that this means that the quality of the diet has improved and that now people have even greater protection from disease than ' they had before. I think this trend will continue.
It is most unfortunate that I have only three minutes left. I shall have to devote that time to the question of public health, because it is so very important, although I wanted to mention the vitamin content of the diet; but it would be wrong on a Debate on nutrition entirely to ignore the effect of our nutritional policy on the public health of the country. The most spectacular change which has taken place in this country is the almost complete elimination of rickets. I wonder if the House realises that at the beginning of the century one-third of the London children had rickets. They either had bandy legs, knock knees, or pigeon chests. Now it is possible to walk down one of our crowded London streets and not see one pair of bandy legs, or knock knees. The outstanding cure and preventive for rickets was cod liver oil.
The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) said, quite rightly—and I try to be objective, unlike the right hon. Member for Scottish Universities—that cod liver oil with the vitamins which it contains was recognised as being a cure for rickets and that it was distributed in the past. But she must remember—I do not want to make a cheap debating point—that cod liver oil is now distributed free in this country and one teaspoonful a day can prevent a child getting rickets, while a little higher dose can cure it.
The difference between the treatment in the past and now is that this Government do recognise that this is an essential


which must be provided free if we are to give every child a fair chance. I do not believe that a pair of knock knees, bandy legs, or a pigeon chest gives anyone a fair chance. They start off with a sense of inferiority which nothing can cure. Therefore, we are trying to translate theories which were expounded in the past into practice and bring these things right into the home of the poorest. That is why I say that while I recognise what was done in the past in the field of child welfare, this Government is not withholding any of these important nutrients from the very poorest income groups in the country.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the low infant mortality rate and the low maternity mortality rate. I have always felt that the work of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Food are complementary to each other, and that wise feeding is one of the greatest weapons that preventive medicine can wield. We look forward to the day when we can allocate that balanced diet, which has its full complement of every nutrient that hon. Members of the House would like to see, without having to consider the supply question. But, despite our difficulties, I think hon. Members will agree that we are progressing, that the hard pressed housewives of the country can feel satisfied that the dark days of 1947 have gone as far as food supplies are concerned and that they may look forward to the future with confidence.
I hope the House will endorse wholeheartedly the policy of my Government—

Mr. Hogg: His Majesty's Government.

Dr. Summerskill: —of His Majesty's Government, that we should continue to give fair shares of the available food, and that in those cases where food is scarce then that food should be shared among those who have the greatest need.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — POLITICAL PARTIES (ACCOUNTS)

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, political parties, and all other organisations having political action as one of their aims, should publish annually full and adequate statements of their accounts.
It seems rather extraordinary that there should be any hesitation in any part of the House about endorsing what is, after all, one of the first principles of democracy. What my hon. Friends and I are asking is that this House should confirm what is a universally accepted democratic principle, that all political parties and all organisations which are likely to take part in the coming Election should make known to the electorate from where they get their funds and upon what they have spent them. Before they vote, the people of this country are entitled to know what particular interests have paid for propagandising the particular views which are put before them.
The Labour Party, the Communist Party and the Liberal Party publish their accounts. The Conservative Party do not. It may be that the Conservative Party believe that it is to their advantage to hide where they get their money and that they feel they will secure some electoral advantage by concealing who their paymasters are. Indeed, one gets that impression by reading the excuses offered in the "Parliamentary Review" of last autumn by their general director as to why they do not see fit to publish their accounts. But even supposing that excuse is valid, surely this House ought to determine this question on a broader basis of democracy than what is or is not to the advantage of any one particular party.
Hon. Members will notice that on the Order Paper there is a Conservative Amendment to this Motion making it a condition that before this House suggests that all parties should publish their accounts, Parliament should first enact legislation to compel them to do so. Is that not rather a peculiar point to make on the last day of the Session—to suggest that this is the time that we should propose legislation—and is it not rather a curious suggestion to come from the one party who have always consistently refused to enact this legislation when they had time to do it? If yesterday's "Daily


Telegraph" is to be believed, the Conservative Party consider that in any event such legislation would be entirely impracticable. If that is the case—and no doubt the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D.Maxwell Fyfe) will give us his view on that—the practical effect of carrying the proposed Amendment would be that the Tory Party would never be under any obligation to publish their accounts. Perhaps that is the real reason why the Amendment was set down.
Therefore, my hon. Friends and I are going to ask the House to accept this Motion as it stands without amendment or qualification. If it is honestly believed by the party opposite that under-cover political organisations, such as, for example, the Aims of Industry or indeed their own Central Office,.cannot be compelled to produce their accounts by the moral pressure of a majority vote in this House, supposing we carry the Motion, but will only do it if they are threatened with legal penalties, then by all means let us have legislation-.
I will make hon. Members opposite an offer. If they will agree to withdraw their Amendment in order to give their own Central Office time in which to make up the accounts, and if the House passes this Motion and at the beginning of next Session they have still refused to produce them, then I will willingly join with them, if the subject is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, in setting down an Amendment, in the very words of their present Amendment, to the Address on the Gracious Speech. We shall then have an opportunity of discussing it. I should like to know whether that course commends itself to hon. Members opposite.
In any event, I cannot see how the Conservative Party can quibble at the Motion as we have drafted it. It is based upon the proposals which were urged upon the Conservative Party at their Birmingham Conference in 1883 by Lord Randolph Churchill. Hon. Members will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) concluded his recent speech at Wolverhampton by quoting the speech made at Blackpool in January, 1884, by Lord Randolph Churchill. On that occasion Lord Randolph had said:
This Tory Party of today exists by the favour of no caucus, nor for the selfish interest of any class. Its motto is ' Of the people, For the people,. By the people.'

It is a pity that, no doubt, limits of time prevented the right hon. Gentleman from telling his audience why it was at that time his father thought this about the Tory Party. It was, of course, because some two months before, Lord Randolph thought, quite wrongly as it turned out, that he had in fact democratised the Tory Party. He thought this because he had, so he thought, persuaded them to adopt a democratic constitution to do away with the control of an irresponsible committee and to publish their accounts. At the Birmingham conference which took place a month or so before the speech referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, this is what Lord Randolph said:
I wish to see the control and guidance ot the organisation of the Tory Party transferred from a self-elected body to an annually elected body. I wish to see the management of the financial resources of our party transferred from an irresponsible body to a responsible body… There is no instance in history, of power, placed in the hands of a self-constituted and irresponsible body, being used otherwise than unwisely at first and corruptly at last …
The corrupt practices at the last General Election on our own side, when the organisation was directed by a secret and irresponsible committee, were so grave and flagrant that our party in Parliament were absolutely prevented from exposing the graver and more flagrant corrupt practices of the Liberal Party…. I should like all the finances of the Tory Party to be open for inspection for anyone who may wish to look at them, be he friend or foe. Where you allow secret expenditure you will certainly have corrupt expenditure; and where you have corrupt expenditure you will have vitiated elections, disfranchised boroughs, party disgrace and public scandal. … 
Lord Randolph thought he had got his reform through and that is why he made the speech which the right hon. Member for Woodford quoted. But he had not. The Tory Party still do not publish their accounts and from an irresponsible committee they have advanced only as far as having a leader responsible to none.
This is the centenary of Lord Randolph's birth and, whatever political divisions divide us, we can all at least admire his courage. Almost his only legislative act when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was to put through a Bill prohibiting the Tory Chief Whip using the Secret Service Funds for financing the Tory Party. It is only fair to say they had been so used by Mr. Gladstone previously. As a birthday present to the right hon. Member for Woodford, could not we all join together at last in putting


through the reform which was dearest to his father's heart?
But, of course, there are many hon. Members of the party sitting opposite who are most unhappy about this undemocratic concealment of their accounts. For example, I think the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby is one. I am sure he learned at the Nuremburg Trials the dreadful and corroding effect on any party of secret subventions from great industrialists whose contributions to party funds were, in Germany, inevitably followed by degrading demands upon those who had incautiously accepted their secret help. He will remember that among the evidence tendered at Nuremburg to support a ' charge of criminal conspiracy, was that immediately prior to the Election of March, 1933, 25 leading German industrialists gathered in Goering's house to agree to raise for Nazi funds, secretly, 3 million marks, a sum of about £200,000. It seems small beer compared to some funds now. Krupps, I.G. Farben, United Steel, all the great German firms were there.
With that experience behind him, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it horribly frightening that exactly the same type of firms which subscribed in 1933 in Germany to Nazi funds are, in England 16 years later, subscribing in secret similarly large sums to the Woolton Fund? I am quite certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worried about it. Perhaps that is why over a year ago, when chairman of the Conservative Party Committee on Party Administration, he recommended that the Tories should publish their accounts. Perhaps he has that report with him. If he has he might turn to page 14 where he will note that in paragraph 28 there is one of those fair and honest admissions which one would always expect from any committee presided over by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It says:
In the past no information about the expenditure or income or the requirements at the Centre has been available to responsible constituency officers, Members of Parliament, candidates or ordinary members of the Party.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Otherwise it was all right."] Then, in the next para-

graph, there is a recommendation that the accounts should be published. I understand that this recommendation was endorsed by the Conservative Executive Committee at their meeting on 2nd September, 1948. Why, then, have not accounts been published? Who overrode the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Committee? Will he tell us that when he comes to reply?

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly.

Mr. Bing: Not only the House but, after all, the country are entitled to an answer. Was it because the publication of the accounts and of even the amount of the big subscribers would show that his party is being financed by industrialists who have plans for the future of this country quite different from the rosy promises given in "The Right Road for Britain"? Let me just give one example to the House. "The Right Road for Britain" says:
We steadfastly refuse to combat our immediate difficulties by deliberately forcing a reduction in our living standards through lowering wage levels or injuring our social services. To do so. would be to embrace a policy of despair.
But this is just a policy of despair which is embraced by the paymasters of the Tory Party.
I do not know if anyone on the other side of the House will be able to tell us how much the group of financial interests which is centred round the United Dominions Trust and the Austin Motor Company have contributed to the Woolton Fund or, indeed, whether they have contributed at all; but their principal spokesman, Mr. Gibson Jarvie, talks as only a man would talk who is in a position to see his policy enforced. Hon. Members may have noticed that in this morning's Press this Mr. Gibson Jarvie was the gentleman who was chosen to explain to the Austin shareholders why they should pay Mr. Lord £100,000 tax free; but, of course, in an article which was circulated by the Aims of Industry,—and I will deal with them in a few minutes—Mr. Gibson Jarvie explains that he has quite another policy for the man in the street:
Cuts of a few hundred million, some of which are not immediate, are only one more expedient. Although five hundred million was


the least cut we were entitled to expect, it is obvious, to anyone who understands our position, that a cut of nearer a thousand million should be our target….
But if this is the financiers' policy, and the other, "The Right Road for Britain," is the policy of the Conservative Party, why do these financiers contribute to Conservative funds? Do these financiers believe—and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with this argument—that they can, as the German financiers did, compel the party which relies on their secret financial support to accept their policy? Is it because of pressure from those paying for their propaganda that the party opposite are already hedging on the glib promises made in "The Right Road for Britain"?
Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their Amendment in this sense, that it is no use compelling the publication, for example, of Tory funds unless one deals, for example, with underground Tory organisations. But our Motion, I suggest to the House, already advocates that, for example, under-cover political bodies, like the Aims of Industry and the Economic League, should tell the public just where they get their money from and just what they do with it. There is, of course, nothing wrong whatsoever in a business arguing its own case before the public and then leaving them free to judge the issue. What is objectionable—and I hope this will be endorsed from all sides of the House—is for an organisation to pretend to have no political aims and thus secure from commercial concerns Income Tax-free and Profit Tax-free contributions which are then used for political action.
The first of these bodies which my hon. Friends and I suggest should publish separate accounts showing the political expenses that it incurs is the Federation of British Industries to which are affiliated 280 trade associations and 6,000 firms. Recently its retiring president, Sir Frederick Bain, of Imperial Chemicals, said that the Federation is not a political body. Of course, they all have to say that if they are to have tax-free contributions. The new president who took his place, Sir Robert Sinclair, of the Imperial Tobacco Company, explained just how in practice the F.B.I. implemented its impartiality. He said:
I believe in stating with all the emphasis at our command and on every possible

occasion the case against nationalisation, State ownership or State management in any degree, including, of course, State control of what are generally called the terminal markets, the Cotton Market, the Metal Market, and so forth.
But unfortunately F.B.I., as they explained in a circular to their members after their meeting in 1949, have not quite enough funds for all this non-political activity in which they indulge, and they therefore advised their members to subscribe to two other non-political bodies, the Economic League and the Aims of Industry.
As hon. Members know, the Economic League has a broad, non-party council, of which, perhaps, the most important member—and I am sorry he is not in the House—is the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). [Interruption.] Oh, yes, so he is here. If the hon. Member for Orpington has the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir, he will be able to stress the non-party aspect of his organisation.
What I was going to remind the House of was that when it was formed in 1925—I am quoting from the 1925 report—the objects of the League were given as
To disseminate economic knowledge, particularly (a) to combat the fallacious economic doctrines of Collectivism, Socialism, and Communism, and (b) to uphold individual freedom, enterprise and initiative.
I take it that it has been carrying on on the same non-party lines ever since.
The other organisation recommended by the F.B.I., the Aims of Industry, Limited, is, of course, just as the Economic League, impartial and non-political. Hon. Members may have received some of its publications. There is one that says,
Housewives, a word in your ear! Don't shoot your butcher. He's not to blame for tough meat, poor quality, tiny rations. The cause is State bulk purchase of meat and State control of distribution.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bing: And of course, the Aims of Industry do distribute from time to time entirely impartial statements of the case of that nature. They are the body who conduct Messrs. Tate and Lyle's anti-nationalisation campaign, and as they explain in their report,
Aims of Industry are now well organised to carry out campaigns of a similar nature for


any industry who may want to take protective action.
Of course, it is non-political.
As I did not want to do him an injustice I took the opportunity of calling on the director of this organisation, and he asked me to make a statement to the House which would put their position very clearly, and I will read it:
The Aims of Industry do not support any political party, have no affiliation with any political party, and receive no funds from any political party, nor do we supply any political party with free literature in bulk. We are independent of Conservative policy since we oppose municipal trading, and, for example, are opposed to the holding of the Festival of Britain.
According to the report sent to their members in 1948, these non-political activities included in the Aims of Industry are:
A sustained attack upon bulk buying, municipal trading, nationalisation, unnecessary controls, Purchase Tax, and bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, the director has not felt at liberty to give me the names of the members for whom these particular activities were carried out, but I have been fortunate enough to obtain from another source a list of the 187 principal subscribers to the Aims of Industry, Ltd. Mr. A. J. Rank is near the head of the list, and he is closely followed by the Brewers' Society. I think it is fair to say that this juxtaposition is due more to equality of contributions than to identity of aim.
Among the other non-political activities of this organisation was the arranging of some 39 meetings in the first month of this year for the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), who recently crossed the Floor of the House. I do hope that when the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) comes to move the Amendment he proposes to move to this Motion, he will say whether this body is one of the organisations which he considers to be political. I will give way to him now if he likes.

Mr. Quinrin Hogg: I was not listening. I am so sorry. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

Mr. Bing: Yes. I was asking the hon. Gentleman if he considers that the Aims of Industry, Limited, is a political organisation or not. Perhaps he will deal with that point when he speaks. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."] Perhaps,

I may have the attention of the hon. Gentleman, because I have one or two more facts to give which will help him to reply.

Mr. Hogg: I was talking to my right hon. and learned Friend about something else.

Mr. Bing: Let me give the House just one example from the records of the Aims of Industry of one such meeting which they organised. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough is standing at the coming Election—generally speaking, he is—on the issue of his difference with the Government over the nationalisation of steel, and yet this non-political organisation saw fit to organise in his own constituency a meeting on steel. This is the account which they themselves give of that:
Publicity took the form of bill posting on every available hoarding within a 10-mile radius of Middlesbrough…. Posters were of three different designs on a 16 sheet size "—
a very large size of poster—
and these posters occupied 155 sites for three complete weeks before the meeting and were supplemented by 1,000 double crown posters over the same period.
I have to give this estimate rather diffidently, because I have not had this display priced, but I understand that the cost of the display alone would be something like £500. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."]
We are not, of course, arguing—nor can we argue I think, on this Motion—any question of law in regard to election expenses. That is quite outside our ambit. What we are saying in regard to this Motion is that, whether or not such expenses should ultimately count in election expenses, at any rate it should be known by the people of this country who incurred those expenses and on whose behalf. No doubt, having to drop this non-political mask would be very embarrassing for the Aims of Industry. They manage to get over a number of political broadcasts by pretending to be impartial. In their annual report for 1949. they boast:
Since August, 1948, to date Aims of Industry have provided speakers, facilities, contacts, scripts and ideas for a total of 63 broadcasts on industrial and allied subjects on the Home and Light programmes.
When an organisation boasts that it can obtain facilities for broadcasts—and one of those they discussed obtaining facilities


for is a steel industry broadcast—through B.B.C. "contacts," is it not time that we at least asked them to publish their expenses? Is it not time that this farce of pretending that these organisations of big businessmen are non-political was ended? Why, their own side do not even now pretend to believe in it. In the November issue of the "Commercial Motor" their political correspondent. "Janus," says:
There is another expression: 'Of course this isn't being political,' much used in transport circles of late, particularly when the conversation has turned to the future of the industry, or to nationalisation. Any sentiment likely to gladden the heart of one or other of the political leaders is hastily followed by a deceptively frank avowal of political disinterestedness. It is as much a ritual as throwing spilt salt over the left shoulder.
He goes on to say, quite frankly:
The Conservative Party promise to be the answer to the hauliers' prayer. Any financial contribution he makes towards its success may be partly selfish, but is wholly natural.
Surely this cannot be true. By subscribing to Tory Party funds are the hauliers going to get some commercial advantage which they would not get if they did not do so?
I hope that for the sake of democracy every party will join us in the Lobby tonight. The right hon. Member for Woodford ended a recent appeal to his own party by a quotation from his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. On the centenary of his birth, perhaps it is worth while repeating to the House Lord Randolph's words on another occasion:
There is no instance in history, of power placed in the hands of a self-constituted and irresponsible body being used otherwise than unwisely at first, and corruptly at last.
Let hon. Members on all sides of the House think of that when they come to vote.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend, who moved this Motion so stimulatingly, has dealt comprehensively with the subject. He has disclosed information which I think must disturb every Member of this House who is sincerely concerned with the integrity of our democratic institutions. His appeal that tonight this Motion should be passed without opposition is one which ought to be considered very seriously by every

Member of the House. It is my intention to keep away, as far as I can, from dealing with this question on a political basis. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I know it is impossible for some of them to think in terms of public policy. There are hon. Members opposite who talk and behave as though this country belonged to them.

Mr. Henry Strauss: "We are the masters now."

Mr. Wallace: That is your belief, and you are disturbed because—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Attorney-General's belief.

Mr. Wallace: It is your belief—

Mr. Speaker: It is not my belief.

Mr. Wallace: I am afraid I allowed myself to be drawn off, Mr. Speaker.
As I see it, the essence of this Motion is that there should be a full and adequate statement of accounts published annually. I hope the party opposite will agree to make this gesture, that they will fall into line with the other parties and publish their accounts. My hon. Friend has referred to other organisations—subsidiary organisations, if you like. There may be a difficulty in defining such organisations, though the facts are clear. If the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who has put down an Amendment to this Motion, wishes to have legislation, I assume he endorses the principle that accounts should be published. The other matters which he raises in his Amendment are, I think, suitable for examination in Committee. I should therefore imagine that he will support this Motion, demand legislation, and then seek the other refinements in Committee. Whether or not he will do so, we shall learn later.
I would point out that the Motion does not object to donations and gifts; it only asks that such donations and gifts shall be revealed in the accounts of political parties. If those donations and gifts were revealed, it would be for the good of democracy in this country. In these days there are many powerful and wealthy organisations which, I venture to say, are not controlled by their shareholders. The men in authority in those organisations really have undisputed control; they have great wealth at their command. If no


party receives gifts and donations from such sources, where is the objection to publishing the accounts? If they do receive such donations and gifts, believing that it is in the best interests of the country, why hesitate to let the electorate know?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: There is a very simple answer to that. The answer is that the industrialists who expose their contributions or gifts, will. as was said from the Government Front Bench, come under the victimisation of the Government in appointments and in contracts with nationalised industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That was said from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Wallace: I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman fears that there may be victimisation; but does he not know that some of these powerful organisations have indulged in victimisation of the workers?

Mr William Ross: And without any protest from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What about the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Wallace: I say: Publish these donations and gifts, and that will be a protection against victimisation.

Mr. Daines: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the Conservative conference the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr Boyd-Carpenter) openly stated that any industrialists who went over to nationalised industries were quislings, and would have to be dealt with?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give way to me, as I have been specifically though inaccurately referred to by his hon. Friend. In order that the record may be quite clear, I ask him to bear in mind that what I said then—and what I repeat tonight—was that an industrialist who sacrificed the interests of the shareholders of his company in order to appease the Government and thereby obtain an appointment in a nationalised industry, was a quisling; and I ask the

hon. Gentleman whether he challenges the accuracy of that description.

Mr. Wallace: It is not my purpose to settle the argument between the two hon. Members. I think that the word "quisling" was used, and I shall deal with that later. In so far as the hon. Member is concerned, I look at this question in this way: It seems to me that Parliament insists—and rightly insists—upon full publicity and full examination of reports and accounts. It has an arrangement for checking those accounts. It insists upon debating these reports and accounts. In other words, it looks upon publicity as a way of checking the integrity of the administration and protecting the interests of the public. In the sphere of local Government, we have the same process. If. in Parliament, the parties insist upon publicity and the discussion and checking of accounts. I do not understand why the party opposite do not also set an example and have publicity in connection with their own accounts? Is there something to hide? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes."]
It is common knowledge, I think, that before the war and during the war, as my hon. Friend has said, there were wealthy interests who were giving support to Hitler. His agents were using influence and wealth to secure friends who would support Hitler's policy in other countries. Even this country did not escape suspicion. There were political quislings and financial quislings. This secrecy breeds suspicion, and there is suspicion in this country. If we as Members are really anxious about preserving the democratic way of life and developing our democratic institutions in accordance with the will of the people, why not remove the suspicion? Why do not the party opposite, instead of talking about legislation, make a gesture and publish their accounts, without legislation? I know I shall ask for that in vain, but do not forget that it is from the other side that this demand for legislation comes and perhaps some day, if they get it, they may not like it.
This question has been before the House in one way or another for some 40 years. In 1908, it was raised by the then Member for South Salford. From 1908 onwards this subject of the publication of accounts has been discussed in Parliament. I referred to some of those


speeches and I found that there had often been general agreement that publication was desirable. The party opposite has been in power for a large number of years since 1908, but still the accounts are not published and still there is no legislation.
There was one Amendment on the Order Paper which has now been removed. It dealt with the principle of contracting-out and contracting-in; but since the Amendment has been withdrawn, I do not propose to pursue that subject now. On the other hand, it has always appeared strange to me that those holding that view did not, when they passed the Trade Disputes Act in 1927, introduce other legislation for the publication of party accounts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has been asking the trade unions to come into conference. Perhaps tonight he will indicate that when that conference takes place, if it does, it is the intention of the party opposite to raise this question of the publication of accounts.
In a publication called "Parliamentary Affairs" three statements appear on party funds. One is written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), one by Philip Fothergill of the Liberal Party, and one by the general director of the Conservative Central Office. I think that the statements made on behalf of the Labour and Liberal Parties were quite frank. They endorsed the principle of publication. Indeed, as I understand, the Liberal Party has consistently advocated the principle of the publication of accounts. I said that I would keep off party politics, and I am supporting this Motion not as a matter of tactics but as a matter of principle. It is a curious thing that the Conservative director does not see it as a matter of principle. His view is this:
It is natural that a political party should want to know what its opponents are doing—how well equipped they are for the forthcoming battle. Tactical warfare is always determined by an intelligent understanding of the enemy's strength. No commander makes a practice of sending his opponent a copy of his order of battle.
If I wanted to talk about class war, that, I think, would supply a very good text. Why think about this matter in terms of battle? Why not accept this Motion as a matter of public policy and something which is in the best interests

of the public? I believe that great wealth gives great power, and if it is used in secret, it is because it cannot be other than bad. I believe that in our present situation this influence, working secretly, will do great harm to this country. I go further and say that if certain conditions develop in the political situation in this country, the outlook for Europe will also be bad.
So I would prefer, if the party opposite insist on demanding legislation, that they should make a gesture and tell us that they will publish their accounts. If they want an example of how to do it, let them follow the Labour Party. I have no doubt that they will criticise these accounts, but even if they say that the accounts are not satisfactory, the Conservative Party are not doing as much as the Labour Party. I am only suggesting that, as a beginning, they might attempt to do as much as the Labour Party, and no one on these benches will criticise them if they can improve on the position. Two or three years ago, the Labour Party issued an appeal for funds and secured just over £125,000. Recently, the Tory Party published an appeal for funds, which realised £1 million in three months. It has now, I understand, passed £2 million, and for all I know may be £3 million.

Mr. Hogg: Or £5 million or £6 million.

Mr. Wallace: I ask myself whether that amount, which is known as the "Woolton Fund," is in any way associated with an appeal of this kind:
We are the shock troops. It is a real fight needing real money for the tools of modern propaganda, and we invite you to arm us with the finance necessary to make our campaign of economic and political education efficient and effective. One penny per cent. of the capital invested in your business may be considered a reasonable contribution to make to ensure an administration at Westminster that will not try to steal your capital.
The appeal goes on:
You spend much more than this on the physical welfare of your employees. Their mental welfare is of even greater importance, and our job is to give them that education necessary to preserve the constitution and to maintain prosperity in the country.
Members opposite like to appeal to America, which has a method of dealing with this problem. Under an Act known as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, the names of campaign contributors, and the


amounts, are required to be filed and to foe made accessible to the public. As a participant in several campaigns says:
My Friend, I will not assert that all funds contributed are expended and so reported, but a considerable proportion is—enough to make quite clear what men and measures enjoy the support of the moneyed people.
If there is to be legislation, then let it be upon these lines. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) also made a speech in 1908. He said: "The party of great vested interests"—

Mr. Hogg: "Patriotism by the imperial pint" again.

Mr. Wallace: —"banded together in formidable confederation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman right today? I think he is, but if not, will the Tory Party accept the challenge made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield in 1948 and publish their accounts? In the "Right Road for Britain," they declare:
restore the House of Commons to its rightful place as the guardian of the individual against the State.
I would always say we should protect the individual. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here."] Tonight, my appeal is this: Let Parliament protect the individual against the great secret and powerful vested interests in this country. Let the party opposite publish their accounts; let them depart from their secrecy. Let them give the names of the donors to their funds, and the amounts. If the Conservative Party believe in democracy, they can endorse this Motion. If they do so, I believe that the Government will bring forward legislation. For 40 years the party opposite have blocked progress in this matter, and they should have the courage to take the people into their confidence and publish the names of those who supply their funds.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The last time I had the good fortune to speak after the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) was on a very foggy evening in his constituency, which he will remember. He became so incited with Ms oratory that he struck the table in front of him and fountains of blood were flung all over the platform. Indeed. I am the only living man who can say, with

honesty, that I am one of the "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled."

Mr. Wallace: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it was his blood that was flung all over the place?

Mr. Hogg: At any rate, I was covered in it. That evening I acquired a great personal affection for the hon. Member, and I must say that I was very sorry to see that he had lent his name to this dirty business. I see that the hon. Member has just left the Chamber, but I fully realise that he has no intention of being discourteous.
I rather prefer the open partisanship of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to the kind of "holier than thou" attitude that the hon. Member for East Walthamstow has allowed himself to take. As a matter of fact, this Motion has done a certain amount of good. It has provided indisputable evidence of the existence of the occult. When I heard the Lord President of the Council announcing, during his Business statement last week, that time would be found for a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, I looked at the Order Paper to see what that Motion was, verified the fact that there was no Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member, and discovered that the Motion did not appear until nearly 24 hours after time had been allotted for its discussion. I know that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the Lord President of the Council are above any little piece of political conspiracy, and I know that it was second sight on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which enabled him to appreciate exactly how it was that a Motion in these terms would be put on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hornchurch.
Not having second sight myself, I had to consult a reputable soothsayer to discover how the Motion came into existence. It happened like this: the date of the Motion appears from its terms; it dates from the period between the announcement of the result of the New Zealand Election and the period before the announcement of the result of the Australian Election. The result of the New Zealand" Election—confirmed, I understand, by cablegrams between Transport House and the headquarters of the New Zealand Labour Party—is that if Labour fights clean it is beaten, and the result of


the Australian Election, as all who have studied it know, is that if Labour fights dirty it is beaten just the same. This Motion dates from the intervening period of days.
Then this happened: the Lord President of the Council was sitting happily at the Cabinet board one day with his colleagues, when he said, "What can we give the boys to send them home in good heart for the Christmas holidays?" The Prime Minister, who is a simple and honest soul, said, "Why not give them a bumper debate on the glorious record of the Labour Party?" Whereupon the Lord President said, "No, thank you; they have seen the New Zealand Election result." The Chancellor of the Exchequer then thought of a nice debate about the plight of the country and the energetic measures being taken by the Government to combat it. But that would not do because they were told that the boys were not interested in the plight of the country, but only in their electoral prospects. So, that suggestion was turned down.
They were next told that nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange might provide a useful send-off for the Christmas vacation. Unfortunately, they were reminded that unless they could intimidate those who are at the moment conducting rather successful propaganda against it in the country by false statements about the law relating to corrupt practices, that course might have to be abandoned in the same way as the insurance proposals. Then what was said was this: "First of all, we must have something dirty. Next we must have something unrelated to the needs of the country. Third, we must have something designed to annoy and embarrass our opponents, and enable the humbugs on our side to pretend that we are holier than anyone else." When this classification was read out to the Cabinet, the cry was heard as far as Lord Nelson's column, "We must send for Bing." The hon. Member for Hornchurch, stuffing an article for "The Times" into one pocket and concealing evidence of his Communist sympathies under his blotting paper, was duly summoned and this Motion came into being.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I wish the hon. Member would get on with it.

Mr. Hogg: The first question to discuss is whether this Motion is or is not an affront to democracy. The hon. Member for Hornchurch based his speech on what he described as one of the first principles of democracy. I submit that it is repugnant to the feelings of all decent people and, therefore, I suggest, attractive to some supporters of the Labour Party, to use the power of a party majority in the House of Commons to force a Division upon something which is designed solely to do political damage to their opponents about a controversial matter concerning the machinery of election and party administration.
The correct way to deal with the question was indicated by the hon. Member for East Walthamstow in the reference he made to Conservative Party policy. If hon. Members think there is a case on these lines about this subject, the proper method, the only decent method, of approach would have been to discuss it in an appropriate conference with all the parties and persons concerned. To use a temporary and, I believe, an evanescent majority in the House of Commons for business of this kind is a dirty business, and it will be recognised—

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there is any cause for disagreement about publishing party accounts?

Mr. Hogg: Certainly I am, and if the hon. Member will follow my argument further he will see that I do not intend to hedge about this matter. I shall put my case point by point in an orderly way.
I say that if hon. Members opposite had the smallest faith in the honesty of their case, or if they had the smallest desire to improve the integrity or purity of our public life—which is what they falsely pretend—then this matter would have been referred to a conference, in which all views could have been put forward, before an attempt was made to employ a party majority to force it through. I cannot myself fail to recollect that the only other occasion upon which the Lord President of the Council, in his capacity as Leader of the House, has adopted, unusually for him, the procedure of allowing Private Members to have a little time, was when he proposed to launch an attack on the Press. The only difference between that occasion and this


is that on that occasion he, at least, had the decency to allow his "stooge" to put the Motion on the Order Paper before he announced that the Government would give time for it.
I believe that this Motion is put down, as was that Motion, as a prelude to other action—as a means of trying to utilise a Parliamentary majority to force through legislation of a disgraceful and undemocratic kind. Time will show whether my suspicions are correct, and whether hon. Gentlemen opposite will have a chance to carry out what I believe to be their evil intentions.

Mr. Austin: rose —

Mr. Hogg: I do not think I had better give way at the moment. I was specially asked to keep my speech within the bounds of time, and obviously I must be a little selective about the persons to whom I can give way.
The hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) said that this surely was not a matter about which there ought to be controversy. He may be right and I may be wrong, but I can only give the House my sincere opinion about this matter, and I can assure the House that I have tried to think about it as honestly as any hon. Member on either side. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman who put that question to me that not only is this a matter about which there ought to be controversy, but that if this Motion were passed, it would be a serious blow for democracy in this country.
Hon. Members, in fact, do not share that view, but I hope that they will at least listen to it, and try to follow it so far as their intelligences permit and so far as they can exhibit the manners to do so. There has been nothing said in the two speeches to which we have listened to alter my opinion or even to touch these arguments. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say, and if my views are as wholly wrong as they pretend, they will find an answer or two to the arguments which I propose to put, but they will be all the more easily answered if they are listened to first.
The hon. Member for East Waltham-stow complained that in a document, the exact authorship of which I am afraid 1

did not catch—and anyway it does not matter—somebody had referred to the party conflict as a battle. That was a little naive of him. The party conflict ought, of course, always to be subordinate on both sides to the public interest, and inspired on both sides by idealism. It ought to be coloured by chivalry and by decency of conduct, but it remains a struggle for power. It is a genuine struggle for genuine power, and it is precisely because it is that, that it possesses the sovereign virtue that it enables the people to remain free without losing to any Government their sense of authority.
It is easy in the more powerful of two armies for the stronger to betray its strength. There was a time in the war when we were not very strong, and the German Army was not at all afraid to say, "We have 300 Divisions." We could not do that, because we were the weaker force. Now it is my opinion that, so far as the powerful, vested, economic interests underlying the two great parties of the State are concerned, the Labour Party can draw upon resources which are more secure and much more powerful than those of any of its opponents. The best evidence of that that I can find is the existence of the Motion on the Paper this evening to ask the weaker of the two organisations locked in conflict with one another, to display the strength of its forces, so as to invite the stronger and bigger to seek advantage from its knowledge. It is to ask the other party to betray its plans and actions over a period of years. It is precisely because the more astute Members of the Labour Party are perfectly aware of this consideration that they have indulged in this dirty business, and I believe the public will recognise that as well as I do.
Secondly, the hon. Member for East Walthamstow was more naive and more straightforward than the hon. Member for Hornchurch. He made his demand perfectly plain. It is that we should publish a list of our financial supporters. The only financial supporter of the Labour Party that I know by name is Mr. Sydney Stanley. I do not want to know any more. The hon. Member for East Walthamstow has been long enough in the trade union world to know that no trade union has ever published a list of persons who pay trade union subscriptions. Of


course they do not as long as there is any danger of victimisation. Ever since the Ballot Act in this country a man's political opinions have been regarded as his own possession—his own to reveal and proclaim if he wishes without fear, his own if he pleases to keep to himself. He and he alone is to be the judge, according to the traditions of decency and democracy in this country, whether either the extent of his commitment or its direction is revealed, and no other person than himself.
If we yield to the demand made tonight that we should publish the names of those who support our party, we shall be going back upon the sound tradition of fully 70 years ago, under which a man's political opinions are his own. With respect, it is not for those who are suspected of being likely to be guilty of victimisation to judge whether that fear of victimisation is or is not real and well grounded.
All that one can say is this, that ever since the Labour Party had a majority, its leaders, and in particular the Lord President of the Council, have sought to intimidate in one way or another all those bodies of organised opinion who do in fact differ from him. If the brewers seek to prevent State public houses in the new towns, they are threatened with dire legislative measures through the use of political power to shut their mouths. If the sugar manufacturers seek to prevent the nationalisation of their industry, they are threatened with prosecution for corrupt practice. If the Press criticise the Government it is vilified and abused and subjected to a Royal Commission, which was none the less tyrannical in intention than it was unfortunate and a failure in its result.
I certainly believe that if the names of those who support bodies hostile to the Government were known, the Lord President of the Council would keep that secret list in his office and would ensure that the humbler names were known, down to the streets and wards of the constituencies. At all events, as I have indicated before, it is not for those who are suspected of harbouring those desires to judge whether the fear is well or ill grounded. It is for those who feel the fear and who have observed the covert and the open action—both kinds—those attempts to undermine political

freedom, to express whether or not they are going to give the information which is sought by those who are suspected of trying to undermine it.
I pass from the aspect whether this proposal is desirable or not to the question whether it is practicable or not. In my view, for what it is worth—and again hon. Members are perfectly entitled to differ from me if they want to, but I only ask them to believe that this opinion is sincerely held, and if they differ from' the reasons to find, if they can, an answer to them—is, that this reform is as meaningless and impracticable as it was originally I believe insincere and undesirable.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of the desirability of the proposal and comes on to the question of whether it is practicable, would he tell me this? He made the only understandable argument that I could gather from what he said against the desirability, the fact that a man was entitled to keep his political opinions secret. Would he be in favour of this Motion if it exempted from its operation only those who expressly withheld their consent from the publication, and published all the others?

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir, I would not be in favour of either so unfair or so ridiculous a proposal. I think I may now deal with the question of practicability, and it may be that on that ground I shall have a little more to say about the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
It is said that the Labour Party publishes its accounts. That is part of the "Holier than thou" campaign which the Pharisees and the hypocrites of the modern world try to put about. The Labour Party publishes accounts, and the accounts are cooked, as I shall proceed to show. Nothing can prevent their being cooked. I do not complain of their being cooked, but they are at least as remote from the truth as the prospectus for which the late Lord Kylsant was sent to prison. They serve no useful function except the purely internal one of keeping the various confederated forces inside the Labour Party, sufficiently informed for their own purposes of what their potential rivals and colleagues are doing. From the point of view of the public the


accounts are cooked. They bear no relation to the facts. They bear no relation to those facts either as to the expenditure from the fund, or as to the way in which the fund was obtained, or as to the way in which it is expended. They are cooked accounts. I do not complain of then-being cooked because they never could have been anything else.
The position is that the accounts show, or purport to show, the income of the Labour Party as something in the neighbourhood of £250,000. I think the actual figure shown is £236,000. The real figure is something like £750,000. That is the figure which ought to be shown on a rational account, but it could not be shown, for the reasons which I shall indicate. The figure shown in the account is £250,000 or thereabouts, as income. How much is that a genuine figure? The answer, so far as I can see, is "Hardly at all." Take, for instance, the political funds of the trade unions. How much of that is shown in the Labour Party's accounts? The answer is—and again I hope I shall not be tied to an exact figure, but I think I am substantially right—about £113,000. The actual size of that fund, as is known on this occasion, though most of the other figures can only be calculated, is about £400,000. The result is—
Mr. Attewell (Harborough) rose —

Mr. Hogg: I do not think I can give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Attewell: Well, tell the truth then.

Mr. Hogg: The actual size of the figure is in the neighbourhood of £400,000, so far as one can ascertain from the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The result is that two-thirds of that political fund is not disclosed in the Labour Party's accounts from the political funds of the trade unions. The figure I am taking is not the figure for expenditure, but I think I am making a reasonable assumption that over a period of years the trade unions' expenditure is not in excess of their income.

Mr. Collide: rose —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Hon. Members cannot interrupt if the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House does not give way.

Mr. Hogg: I will give way to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, West (Mr. Collick) when I have finished this part of my argument. A financial argument should not be broken into.
I think that the figure £400,000 is certainly not that which is revealed in the Labour Party's accounts. Have we any information at all—not exact information but any information—as to what the balance goes on? My information is—hon. Members have the best means of knowing whether it is false or true, but I hope they will give me exact information where mine is necessarily incomplete—that the part which does not go in affiliation fees in the Labour Party's accounts includes subventions of candidates' expenses and of salaries of Members of Parliament in many cases and in special funds not included in the rules where those are in connection with the election of a Member to Parliament or to other public bodies. When I say salaries to Members of Parliament, I include salaries to members of local authorities too. If that is not what they go on I should be very interested to know what they do go on. This "holier than thou" business of saying "We publish our accounts" is all very well, but the fact is that they do nothing of the kind.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Collick: rose —

Mr. Hogg: I will give way in a moment; I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman. The real payments and the real expenditures are of a totally different order in the proportion, as I calculate, of about £2 undisclosed to £1 disclosed. I will give way to the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) now.

Mr. Collick: The hon. Gentleman has throughout been referring to a fund. Will he please tell the House to which fund he is referring?

Mr. Hogg: That is a perfectly fair question. I was referring to the total, so far as I can ascertain it, of the political funds of the trade unions with political funds.

Mr. S. Silverman: Where did the hon. Gentleman ascertain it?

Mr. Hogg: The figures are, of course, published every year by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The published total


reveals the tact that the Labour Party's account is cooked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and it fails to say where
the money goes, which is really what we are inquiring into.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Hon. Members must really maintain some sort of Order in this House of Commons; otherwise we cannot speak at all.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is a coward.

Mr. Hogg: I turn now to the Co-operative Movement and its relation to the Labour Party. The Co-operative Movement also has political funds of a very considerable order, but very few of these appear in the political accounts of the Labour Party or even in the political* accounts of the Co-operative Party. As I see it, affiliation fees amount to about £18,630, but they represent only a very small proportion of the political expenditure in favour of the Labour Party by the Co-operative Movement.
No proportion whatever of the affiliation fee to the Co-operative Union of £100,000 is revealed as a separate political item, and yet we know that these things are not unpolitical, impartial or unbiased in the sense which the hon. Member for Hornchurch would have liked the Aims of Industry to be. The education movement on which the Co-operative Movement spends £358,000 a year is very largely directly political and tendentious; yet no reference is contained in the accounts to this political item.
All these are not matters of complaint. I am not asking for further information on these subjects at all. I should not get it, and I do not propose to waste my breath. What I am showing is that it is wholly impossible and impracticable for a political movement to publish significant accounts and that, in fact, the Labour Movement does not do so. How do the services of paid members of the trade union movement—whole-time secretaries and the like—some very considerable part of whose time is spent in tendentious or political activities, become shown in the account? Yet if it was an honest account on the ordinary basis of accountancy,

those items would have to be shown. They are, of course, quite unshowable, but that only goes to show that the whole demand for accurate or full accounts is an impossible demand.
I now turn to the question of associated movements with which the hon. Member for Hornchurch specifically invited me to deal and with which he dealt at some considerable length.

Mr. Woods: rose —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon Members must not forget that they can only interrupt if the hon. Member who has possession of the Floor gives way.

Mr. Hogg: It really is not practicable, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to give way to interruptions on the scale on which I am receiving them without completely occupying the whole of the rest of the time of the House, which I do not propose to do despite frequent interruptions.
The question of associated bodies, in my judgment at any rate, provides insuperable difficulties to the person who demands accurate or fair financial accounts of political movements. The hon. Gentleman dealt with a body called the Aims of Industry. I shall make a further reference to it in a moment or two in answer to his Question, so far as I am informed at all. He did not take an obvious, from his point of view, and far stronger case. Take the case of the Primrose League, for instance, I am not pretending in any political sense that the Primrose League is not a Conservative body, but I am speaking in a legal sense. After all, in the end we are discussing legislation. It is a wholly separate body controlled by different people and with different ascertained legal ends, although I am happy to think that it is still possible to believe in God, King and country and not be a Socialist. Still, the Primrose League would be quite outside the Conservative Party for any definite legal account. What sort of significance could accounts have if it is so easy to create separate bodies like these.
The hon. Gentleman asked about two bodies, the Economic League and the Aims of Industry, with neither of which, I hope be will believe, am I in any way associated at all. The fact about these two bodies is that it would be very much preferable from the Conservative point


of view in many ways if they could be induced to come under the Conservative wing. There was a fund organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) called "The Fighting Fund for Freedom." In collecting money that was a direct rival to the Conservative Party. Money which would otherwise have come into our funds was diverted into it, but no doubt from the point of view of the hon. Member it would have to be treated as a purely Conservative organisation. Supposing I take, on the other side of the fence, something like the Socialist Fellowship, presided over, I think, by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), who occupies the same sort of position in the Labour Party now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington does in the Conservative Party. How is that to be shown in the political accounts of the party? I do not think it would be possible to do it.
The Aims of Industry and the Economic League, which, so far as I know, although it is no doubt honoured by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), does not directly reflect the political or economic views of my hon. Friends, are, so far as I can see, bodies with very largely parallel political aims to those professed by most Conservatives and no doubt in close alliance in a practical way with many individual Conservatives. They are still entirely independent and completely unbound by party decisions and policy sometimes directly hostile to them. They are not to be included in the Conservative Party funds, as I gathered was suggested by the hon. Member. What about the Left Book Club?

Mr. Bing: All this Motion suggests is that all such organisations should publish the political expenditure in which they indulge. They need not be grouped under political headings; it is sufficient if they separate their political from their other expenditure.

Mr. Hogg: Then I utterly fail to understand that part of the argument of the hon. Gentleman which was designed to ridicule and attack the Aims of Industry as an organ of the Conservative Party. It must have been irrelevant and deliberately made in order to inflame party feeling on the other side of the House and

to prevent it arriving at a just and impartial judgment of this issue.
But what about the Left Book Club for instance? The Fabian Society, of course, is affiliated to the Labour Party or was affiliated to the Labour movement. Where are its accounts? They are not very fully published. What about private enterprise? I have a little book in my hand which I should describe as straightforward Labour Party propaganda. The House knows that I have followed with attention the recent statements of the Attorney-General on the subject of accounts, although not always with agreement. What value will these political accounts have if they do not help in the discharge of perhaps the most important accounting duty which a politician may have today, namely, the accounting duties in relation to election expenses, especially in relation to election expenses provided by political organisations and parties?
Look at this little book in my hand. Is it or is it not designed to influence the result of the Election?

Mr. Artewell: That has nothing to do with this Motion.

Mr. Hogg: Does it or does it not cost money? Is it or is it not designed to disparage particular candidates, and is it or is it not intended to be disseminated throughout the constituencies of the country? The House may one day have an answer to those questions because I propose to send this little book to the Attorney-General with a request that it be passed on to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that, when the supporters of the Aims of Industry and Mr. Pugh—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the book? "]—and other political figures find their way into the dock, they may have some distinguished company—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What is the book?

Mr. Hogg: —with this difference, that those who are found guilty under the Section are disqualified from sitting in the House for seven years—

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a book; surely hon. Members are entitled to know the name of the book in question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Hogg: —with this difference only, that of the gentlemen who will be in the dock, if the Attorney-General is right, only two would he disqualified effectively from sitting in a House of Commons to which they had been elected. The tendentious character of this material—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the book? "]—and the desirability of including it in any political account which there may be is clearly seen from the index alone. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the name of the book?"] I find in the index the following names in close connotation to one another—Herbison, Margaret; Hinchingbrooke, Lord; Hitler, Adolf; Hoare, Sir Samuel; Hogg, Quintin.

An Hon. Member: Who is he?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What is the name of the book?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can read I hope, though I doubt it. I have shown the book to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is in legible characters—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I cannot see.

Mr. Hogg: —and if he can read this, he can see its title. If he cannot read, I will tell him afterwards. It is manifest that when we come to demand the financial activities going on behind things like this it is utterly meaningless to ask for exact or accurate political accounts of the organised political parties in the land. In fact, as I have indicated, any financial account, produced by a political party, as are those produced by the Labour Party, would be manifestly misleading and obviously cooked.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch some time ago, in the course of his extensive researches, said he had found an old and interesting book in the Library to which he referred for inspiration and guidance. Let me remind the hon. Member for Hornchurch of a saying in that book which is at the same time replete with spiritual insight and practical vision. It is this, that one should not try to remove the mote from one's neighbour's eye until one has dealt with the beam in one's own. This Motion of the hon. Gentleman is dirty business. It will be recognised as such by the country; it will not pay. On the contrary, what ultimately will pay in politics is clean fighting and a

chivalrous attitude towards opponents but, if one persists in an attitude which is replete with party venom, one will both lower the tone of public life and ultimately bring down upon one's own head a retribution which will be none the less horrible because one will richly deserve it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) seconding the Amendment?

Brigadier Head: I beg formally to second the Amendment which has been so lucidly and forcefully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point ot Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I heard you ask whether the hon. and gallant Member was getting up to second something, but I have not yet heard the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) move anything.

Mr. Hogg: I beg formally to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but only if the submission of such accounts can be regulated by legislation designed to secure the fullness and accuracy of such accounts, their submission by all such organisations, and the inclusion therein of entries in respect of services rendered to each organisation concerned by other organisations or individuals or the servants of such organisations or individuals.

Brigadier Head: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Byers: I hope that I shall not detain the House as long as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) did. The best comment I can make upon his speech is that after 17 minutes he used this phrase: "The first argument which occurs to me—". I was extremely sorry to see an hon. Member with his reputation in the difficult position in which the hon. Member for Oxford found himself tonight. If we want an advertisement of the poor case which the Conservative Party can put up, it is that one of their most distinguished and brilliant back benchers should have to pad his speech in order to get through.
I know very little indeed about the Labour Party's accounts and I do not propose to deal with them in any detail tonight. I understand that they are published. I have not heard much criticism


about those published statements. There is a certain amount of criticism about the money which is used by trade unions for subventions, but there again, I feel that so long as adequate publicity is given, that really is the principle at stake.
I am sorry to deal in some detail with the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, but he made some provocative remarks. He referred to "this hypocritical 'holier than thou'" attitude. I do not see that there is anything hypocritical about it. Indeed, I hope that we are, in fact, "holier than thou." The fact that we in the Liberal Party have published our accounts for a considerable number of years—over 25—makes us a great deal holier than the Conservative Party.

Mr. Hogg: Did the Lloyd George Fund come within those published accounts, and where is it?

Mr. Byers: If the hon. Member thinks that he will embarrass me by that remark—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member has not got the fund. I know that.

Mr. Byers: I have not got it, but I understand that the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), who sits on the Conservative Front Bench and was there only an hour ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has gone now."]—is one of the trustees of that fund.

Mr. Hogg: He is a Liberal.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Oxford says that he is a Liberal. It so happens that he does not take or accept the Liberal Whip for this House, that he was a member of the Caretaker Government and sits on the Conservative Front Bench. In fact, I should like to know where that fund is.
One of the most remarkable comments by the hon. Member for Oxford was that this was a dirty business. Really, what does that mean? He is suggesting that because a perfectly reasonable Motion has been put down on the Paper—I shall support the Motion without any hesitation whatsoever—it is a dirty business. Because the Conservative Party are asked to publish their accounts, it is a dirty business. It may be, but not until this Motion is accepted. Another remarkable

argument was that this publication of accounts would strike a blow at democracy. That is the sort of argument that was put forward in the old pre-war days in the Oxford Union. When one could think of no other argument to put forward, one inverted the whole Motion and said that black was white merely because of the necessity to keep the debate going.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member should speak for himself, from his own experience.

Mr. Byers: I can speak for myself and with my own experience. I only spoke in the Union on one occasion.

Mr. Hogg: That is what happened then.

Mr. Byers: This idea that a political party should not divulge its strength or its weakness is not an argument which can stand up to inquiry. The electorate has the right to know which vested interests are behind a political party. That is an elementary right. It does not matter whether a man, as a candidate, is put forward by an association or whether big business or trade unions subscribe to political funds—the electorate has the right to know who is doing it and who is behind him.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) and I—I am not sure who started this, but think that I did—challenged Lord Woolton in about 1947. I have challenged him regularly, and there has been a good Press for it. I should think that he cannot have missed it. But not a murmur about the Woolton Fund. I have some experience of raising money for the Liberal Party. I have raised about £100,000 in two and a half years. It is not easy, and I will explain why. In a democratic organisation it has to be got in small sums. I say quite frankly that to get £1 million some very large sums must be subscribed.
I should like to put this question to the Conservative Party: How many individuals or firms subscribed more than £20,000 each to the Conservative Party's Woolton Fund? I am not asking for the names now—I would like to know how many. The electorate ought to know that because that is the sort of sum which wields power. It is not so much the contributions of £5 or £100; it is when they


get up into the £5,000 and £10,000 mark. That is where one gets into the patronage class and into power.

Mr. Austin: Is the hon. Member, as one who was present at the 1947 conference of the Tories at Brighton when the campaign for £1 million was launched by Lord Woolton, aware that the first £1 million was subscribed within three months, by December of the same year?

Mr. Byers: Yes, we followed it very closely indeed and we have our own research department on these and other matters. The fact remains that to get £1 million in that period of time is a very difficult business unless firms and very wealthy individuals subscribe large amounts. Quite frankly, I do not believe it can be done on what we normally term a democratic basis. If it can be done, then let us have the figures. That is the only answer. It is no use giving opinions; we must have figures.
What amused me most in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford was when he said that the only contribution he had thought of to the Labour Party which had been published was that of Mr. Sydney Stanley. Of course, we are not sure whether Mr. Sydney Stanley subscribed to the Conservative Party. I think we ought to know.

Mr. Hogg: We did not call him "my dear Stan."

Mr. Byers: If that was the only reason why the Conservative Party were not on speaking terms with that gentleman, then it is important that they should publish their accounts, because their formal transactions may be as much involved as the informal ones over which Christian names were used.
On the question of publication, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made a devastating speech. On the principle, surely, there can be no disagreement. The electors have the right to know from where the money is coming. When the hon. Member for Oxford says that it is impracticable to give details, he should consider what we have been able to do in the Liberal Party. We have not found it impracticable at all.
There are two aspects of this point: one is the statement of accounts, which may or may not be misleading, the other

is the list of donors. We have given both, with this exception, which, I think, covers the point that was made by the hon. Member for Oxford—that where a man or woman has come to us and said, "Will you please keep my gift anonymous," we have definitely respected that anonymity. If legislation is to be introduced, I think that some way round it could be found. If the gift is very large, one should hesitate to keep it anonymous and should say to the donor, "If it is as large as that, it will have to be published, because obviously people do not give sums as large as £20,000 or £30,000 for nothing." If it is a reasonable sum, however, we ought to respect people's anonymity.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the hon. Member also say that the Liberal Party are publishing, or propose to publish, any record of help given to their candidates by way of election expenses from large trade bodies or federations?

Mr. Byers: I think the hon. Member is referring to one of those large federations—I think it is the Meat Trades Federation—which has promised support to a particular Liberal candidate. This is the only occasion that has been brought to my notice and I say it must be published, and I understand the candidate himself is only too anxious that the electorate and constituents should know who is supporting him—not for all election expenses but for part of his election expenses.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member agree that, even if anonymity is to be kept in the case of individuals, there is not the same reason for recognising the democratic freedom of those legal creatures, limited companies?

Mr. Byers: Yes, I would agree there. Without using the same phraseology as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I would say that if business interests are giving large sums—say more than £100—that fact ought to be declared, because it can have very serious effects upon the attitude of members of a party in the House of Commons when legislation is passed. I believe that is important. The Liberal Party publish annually, as part of the report to the assembly meeting every year, their statement of receipts and payments and


details of all expenditure by their organisation on publications, publicity, committees, appeals and so on. They also give a complete list of their investments. I do not know whether that is done by the Labour Party, but we certainly do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is done."]—and those accounts are audited by Deloitte Plender Griffiths & Co., chartered accountants. Why cannot the Conservative Party do that? Why not? Are they suggesting that those accounts are not accurate, because if they do, it is a direct slur on the auditors?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: No one said it.

Mr. Byers: If there is to be any suggestion, I think the hon. and gallant Member might stand up and make it.

Brigadier Prior Palmer: The hon. Member was putting words in our mouths and then proceeding with the old trick of shooting them down. I merely asked whether anyone on this side said that.

Mr. Byers: What I said was that it had been said that it was impracticable and that the accounts had been cooked. If anyone says that about the Liberal Party accounts, I refer them to the auditors.
The next point is the question of donations. On the question whether it is practicable, we have a magazine published every week—" The Liberal News." We have had a number of appeals; we have had a campaign fund appeal. We published the names of all donors with the amount they gave, week by week. We published them on what was called the Byers Appeal and 15 copies carried lists of donors with all the amounts they gave. There is no question of impracticability in this. Look at the kind of literature of the Conservative Party which could carry the names of such people. We have carried them down to half a crown and a shilling. People like to know who else is subscribing, and why should they not know? On all occasions we have sought to give maximum publicity to support of our funds.
This argument of impracticability is absolute humbug and the hon. Member for Oxford and the Conservative Party know it. I challenge them and say that the reason they will not publish their

accounts, or their subscriptions, or donations, is that they are frightened to do so. They know very well that if those accounts were published the people of this country would know quite conclusively to which vested interests the people of the party above the Gangway are absolutely tied. If they want to prove to the country before the Election that they are not tied to any vested interest, let them in the next two months publish the full story of the Woolton Fund and their accounts. If they refuse to do so, we shall reserve the right to continue to call them the party of privilege and big business.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) on a very gallant speech. I shall have something to say about the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in a few minutes, and it will not be couched in* too kind language. I first address myself to the purpose of this discussion and this Debate.
In the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday,
Mr. Colin Coote had an article covering
very wide ground, most of which would
be out of Order tonight, and in the article
he said:
The only connection between this Motion "—
that is, the Motion on the Order Paper
today—
and the election expenses stunt is that both seek to create prejudice against the Conservatives.
Now, this is the sentence I want to read, and there is in it a word which I hope to heaven will never disgrace an English dictionary.
The insinuation is that the Conservative Party is secretly subventioned "—
What a word! I gather what he means, however—
by 'big business' and much more wealthy than the Socialists.
I say now that that is not an insinuation; I say it is a fact. The Tory Party are subventioned by big business and I am not ashamed to say so tonight.
I turn to the substance of this Debate. The question is: Where did the Tories get their money? I watched their fund with very considerable interest. I refer again to the article in the "Daily Telegraph ":


There is, in fact, nothing secret about the sources of Conservative funds; and all Socialist chatter about the ' Woolton million mystery' is completely vapid: Lord Woolton raised his fund by collections from clubs, constituencies and institutes "—
of a democratic type—
and from many thousands of individual subscribers, every one of them voluntary in the sense that some subscribers to Socialist funds are not.
I remember a statement made by Lord Woolton, made with tears in his voice, with pride and with humility, as to how this sum was raised in humble half-crowns and so on by the common people. It takes an awful lot of half-crowns to make a million pounds. The hon. Member for Northern Dorset is right, and I support him, when he says that that fund raised a good deal more than a million pounds.
The Tory argument tonight has been most astonishing. The real argument is that we do not tell them enough—not that we tell them something, but that we just do not tell them as much as they would like to know. They have the snooper's mind. The hon. Member for Oxford showed tonight that he had the snooper's mind, sneaking round to find out more than we tell. The point is that the Tory Party do not tell us anything. I refer again to the "Daily Telegraph"—a cross-heading: "No secret Tory source." That interested me. The article said:
If the Conservative Party published their accounts on the lines of the Socialist accounts, I doubt whether any Socialist could discover who had contributed.
But the real secret is this; this is how we can find out:
The Socialists could, however, find out whether any ' big business' had in fact contributed, if not from the published accounts of a firm, then by asking at the statutory general meeting of shareholders.
This really is shadow-boxing on the part of the Tory Party.

Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Greenwood: I am now going to make a challenge to the Tory Party, and I will ask the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) to give an answer to that challenge. When the Tory Party publish as much as we do, then I will undertake—and my comrades will agree with me—to march

with them and give any more disclosures they will agree to. That is a fair and open challenge to which I am entitled to receive an answer.

Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. Friend will not.

Mr. Greenwood: They have not gone as far as we have now, and yet they complain that we have not gone far enough. I will march as far as they will any time once they have come up to the standard we have already achieved. They want more detailed disclosures of funds. So far as I am concerned, from our point of view they can have them. We have nothing to hide.
It is more important that I should deal with the hon. Member for Oxford, who has now left the Chamber, and with the Tory Amendment. The Tory Amendment has been destroyed by the hon. Member for Oxford. I have never heard a more disgraceful, contemptible speech in my life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has, by implication, charged me personally, as an officer of my party, and charged my party, with dishonesty. I resent it. We do not have the opportunity—those of us who are not shareholders in those big companies—to go to get the truth. Can we get it from the Tories now? Who is doing the shilly-shallying? Who is dishonest in this matter? Who is the last party to accuse us of being politically dishonest? I noticed a term the hon. Gentleman used several times—"a dirty business." Well, they should know. The hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment, which accepts the Motion. It does not move anything in the nature of rejection. It says, "We accept this Motion." But—there is a "but"—it goes on to impose even further restrictions—even further conditions about publication of political funds. Yet the hon. Gentleman's speech was not about that at all. He lied when he said that he believed all this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word.

Mr. Greenwood: I withdraw it, and substitute a term which was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition many years ago. The hon. Gentleman was guilty of "a terminological inexactitude: "The hon. Gentleman


made a speech which was cynical. He does not believe a word of this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He defeated it by his own arguments. Every argument that he adduced was deadly to his own Amendment.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Awbery: He has run away.

Mr. Greenwood: If I thought that this Amendment was meant in all sincerity and without any dirty business, I would recommend my hon. Friends to support it. We will march further than the Tories will in the matter of publication of accounts and of money which is asked for. I say that this is a dishonest Amendment. It was put on the Order Paper, not for the purpose of throwing any further light on political funds but for the purpose of obscuring the issue, for purposes of deception—of which the hon. Member for Oxford is a great expert, as his speech tonight showed.
I think that the case is clear. Certainly the hon. Member for Northern Dorset made it clear. If the people of this country choose to support a political party, they are entitled to do so, and they are entitled to know from what source the money of that party comes. I am told by the hon. Member for Oxford that the accounts of the Labour Party are cooked. That is completely untrue. The hon. Member quoted from published figures—from trade union figures, Cooperative Society figures, and Friendly Society figures. Where did he get them? From published documents issued in accordance with the requirements of the law of the land. There can be no question of the cooking of our accounts. We, as a political party, have always published the funds over which we have control. If a way can be found, and if the Tories will tread the path with us, so that we can have the disclosure of the funds of all affiliated organisations—and most of ours do it—and the local parties, too, we will march with them.

Mr. Thomas Reid: But will they march?

Mr. Greenwood: They will not march. They dare not.
The further particulars for which we are asked in this Amendment are very

very difficult to obtain. Our accounts, like those of the Liberal Party, are audited by a highly respected firm in London, and if the hon. Member for Oxford were to make his charge outside, he would probably have to face the consequences in a court of law. An hon. Member who says that my party, or that I as its principal financial officer, its treasurer, would be guilty of cooking the accounts, is not worthy to be a Member of this House. My honour stands as high as that of any hon. Member opposite, and my record of service in the public interest is as good, and I say that that charge of cooking accounts is beneath the dignity of this House. Who is he, that he should say that? His party do not have accounts to cook; nobody sees them; they are all smothered up somewhere, in some great building over the road. Nobody knows about them. This huggermugger of the Tory Party is just too terrible. There is only one answer: decency in politics. My party will take the lead. We will march as far as anybody and give the utmost publicity to political accounts of money collected. I cannot say fairer than that. Finally, I ask the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby whether he accepts my challenge.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I had not intended intervening in this Debate, and would not have done so had it not been that an organisation with which I was connected for many years was attacked by name by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). That organisation is the Economic League. I want to make my personal position perfectly clear. I was its director from 1925 to 1945. If I had not entered into party politics I might well be its director today. The Economic League has a rule, which it has had for 30 years, that if its director wishes to embark upon party politics he must resign his position with the League before he is even considered for adoption, and not after he is adopted. I therefore want to make my position clear. When I resigned, the league made me a member of their council in recognition of the services I have given to them.
So far as the Economic League is concerned, I suggest that the hon. Member for Hornchurch is trying to make mystery where mystery does not exist. Throughout the 30 years of its existence, it has


had no association with party politics. It has never received any money from party political funds. There is no secret at all about the sources of its funds. There is no secret now and there never has been. Its money is received from industrial federations, firms and private individuals who support its aims and its work.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch quoted its aims as stated in 1935. He is a little out of date, because after the war they were completely re-drafted, and the constitution of the organisation was re-drafted. I will read a small extract from that constitution. It says:
To promote and improve, by means of public meetings, the delivery of lectures, the formation of schools and training classes and such other means as may seem expedient, the knowledge and study of economics and of other industrial and social subjects affecting the interest of the community and of members thereof, from the standpoint that the preservation of personnel freedom and free enterprise is essential to national well-being.
It goes on:
While maintaining its complete independence of any political party, the League must actively oppose all subversive forces—whatever their origin and inspiration—that seek to undermine the security of Britain in general and of British industry in particular.
Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to support these subversive forces? The hon. Member for Hornchurch spoke of bodies—I think that I have his words right—"likely to take part in the General Election." I will make the Economic League's attitude perfectly clear by reading a letter of the 16th November, 1949. If the hon. Member for Hornchurch had taken the trouble to see Mr. Morgan Phillips, he could have shown him a copy of that letter. It says:
I have been asked by my Chairman to inform you of the decision taken by unanimous resolution passed at a meeting of the Central Council of the Economic League held on 9th October, 1949. All indoor and outdoor meetings, speaking engagements and distribution of literature of the Economic League, other than its regular publications, Notes and Comments and Facts, shall cease during any General Election period, and all such activities shall therefore be closed down on the day the writ is issued until the day after Polling Day—usually a period of approximately three weeks.
It goes on:
No full-time employees of the League shall be freed for election work during that period by terminating or suspending their appointments.

I shall now turn to the literature of the League. First, the current issue of Notes and Comments is entitled, "How can agriculture help?" I do not think that has much association with party politics. In the October "Facts" the first article deals with the need for more incentives in industry, the second with the British aircraft industry, and the third with the importance of the use of tracing paper in industry. The November issue deals with the effects of devaluation on agriculture in its first article. The second article is entitled "Canada Strikes Big Oil," and the book review deals with the stag of the Commandos' "Green Beret."

Mr. Braddock: Would it be in Order to ask the hon. Member to stand in the middle of the Chamber, because we might then be able to hear him?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not being heard because there is rather too much noise on the Government side of the House.

Mr. Baker White: I will now turn to some of the leaflets that have been recently published.

Mr. John Paton: The hon. Member has been spending a considerable amount of time endeavouring to prove that this body is entirely non-political. Will he say, then, why this body thinks it necessary to close down during the General Eleotion?

Mr. Baker White: For the simple reason that it is non-political. The answer is perfectly clear. It is a non-political body which conducts open-air meetings and distributes literature in exactly the same places as the meetings and distributions of literature of candidates at the General Election.
I will now turn to the leaflets that have been issued in this period just before the General Election. I have one here called "Do You Know?" I will read just one passage. I shall willingly supply any Members opposite with a complete set of these leaflets.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: And the accounts?

Mr. Baker White: I am coming to that At the end of this leaflet, it is stated:
The job of management is to produce goods that will sell. The union's job is to look after


the welfare of their workers. These two working in the right spirit will get the country out of a tough spot.
Here is a leaflet on agriculture. It states:
The land of Britain is a priceless heritage, handed down to us by our forefathers. Within our lifetime, between the wars, we made the tragic mistake of neglecting that heritage. That meant hard times for all on the land. Let us never make that mistake again.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Hon. Members saying "Hear, hear" are proving my point. Take the next leaflet—"The Red Plot." It says:
Your task is to fight Communism all the time. It is no use leaving it to someone else to do the job.
I turn to the next leaflet—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. I am a little puzzled to know, Sir, what bearing this advertisement of the Economic League has upon the question of whether or not political organisations should publish their accounts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is replying to the case made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

Mr. Baker White: I do not think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has been here all the time.

Mr. Silverman: I have.

Mr. Baker White: The hon. Member for Hornchurch made a direct attack on this organisation, accusing it of political activity.
I turn now to the Economic League's attitude to nationalisation, which is of some importance. It has always been opposed to nationalisation. It opposed the nationalisation of mining royalties when it was introduced by an anti-Socialist Government. It opposed the centralisation of London Transport, so I suggest that in this matter it is completely consistent. There is another point which may interest hon. Members opposite. A good deal of the work of the league is done inside factories and canteens. Its one inflexible rule is that it will not hold a meeting inside a factory unless the assent of the trade unions has been obtained. I challenge any hon. Member to tell me of a case where this rule has been broken.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) as being a member of the committee of the league. So is another of my hon. Friends and so am I, but we are only three out of the 538 members of the committee. The hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) might like to know that until his death a very well known and greatly respected Liberal Peer, Lord Gainford, was president of the organisation.
Now I come to the balance sheet and statement of accounts. They are audited and laid on the table at the annual meeting of the league's various corporate bodies, and are open to inspection by any of its supporters at any time in the year. I strongly suspect that the hon. Member for Hornchurch obtained his information about the Economic League from pamphlets issued, by the Labour Research Department. That Department is the research department of the Communist Party.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: All I wish to say about the Economic League, in reply to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), is that when he came to deal with its accounts, he was extremely evasive. He said that they were open to inspection by the league's supporters, but what we are asking is that they should be open to the public, which is a different thing. The hon. Member's definition of non-political organisations opposed to nationalisation is one to which we are becoming increasingly accustomed. He and the Economic League have talked a good deal about crypto-Communists; we are also interested in crypto-Tories. Of the 93 members of the staff of the Economic League who, presumably, will be dismissed if it is closing down, how many will be carrying on full-time propaganda for the Tory Party during the Election campaign?

Mr. Baker White: I did not want to detain the House by reading the last paragraph of the letter which was sent to Mr. Morgan Phillips and the other political parties, but it says:
During the period of the General Election a course of economics and a youth course will be held in London for selected speakers


nominated by the League's ten area organisations. Area officers will arrange local courses for the balance of staff left over in areas, so as to ensure that the best use is made of the three weeks in question for the purposes of training and studying.
Not one member of the staff will be dismissed, released or stood off during the General Election.

Mr. Hughes: I want now to turn to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I am amazed at the showing which the Conservative Party have put up in this Debate. Those of us who have studied this question of the publication of political accounts have been led to believe that there was a serious move in the Conservative Party which favoured the publication of accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) referred to an important committee which had recommended this to the Conservative Conference at Llandudno. We understood that an even higher-powered body under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was considering the recommendations after that conference. The impression that the country was given at the time of the Llandudno Conference, as reported by Trevor Evans in the "Daily Express" and by other people, was that the Conservative Party would shortly be publishing their accounts. Now we understand from the hon. Member for Oxford that what these Conservative committees are in favour of is what he called "a dirty business." That is the only conclusion we can come to as a result of his speech.
His attack on the Labour Party has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood). I want only to say that the whole tenor of his remarks on the trade union, Co-operative and Labour Party organisation showed that not only had he not read his own Amendment, but he had not read the Motion to which it was an Amendment. If he had, it would have been clear, even to the hon. Member for Oxford, that all we are asking for in this Motion—and what the Amendment is asking for as well—is that all organisations having political action as one of their aims should publish their accounts independently in a way that makes them available to the public.
That is done by the Labour Party for all the funds which pass through its channels. It is done by the trade union movement, for all its political funds, whether in the form of donations or affiliation fees to the Labour Party, or whether used for independent political action. However they are spent they are published in accordance with the requirements of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and are available to the public. The same is also true of the Co-operative movement. In the Labour Party accounts there appears the affiliation fee of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society; in the National Council of Labour accounts it is clear what sum comes from the Co-operative Union and the Co-operative Party accounts show the public what the Cooperative Party spends itself.
That is all that this Motion is asking—not that these organisations, whether they are the three I have mentioned, or the Fabian Society, or the Economic League, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers or the Aims of Industry, etc., should amalgamate their accounts together in one amorphous mass, but that they should make their own separate accounts available so that any intelligent citizen who wishes to understand what economic forces are backing different political movements in this country shall be able to ascertain the elementary facts.
We have reason to believe that when it comes to questions of finance, not only is the Labour Party the weaker vessel, but it is a very considerably weaker vessel. I will give some reasons for that. Lord Woolton set out to raise £1 million. On 3rd October, 1946, he appealed at the Brighton conference for that sum. Next day in "The Times" it was announced that promises of well over a quarter of a million had been received from the constituencies. Was that done on the doorstep? Was that good democratic money got in shillings, sixpences or even amounts of five pounds? Of course, it was not. A month later the "Evening News" announced that the sum had run into six figures and that there were several individual contributions of £10,000.
If there are citizens of this country misguided enough to want to spend £10,000 on Conservative Party propaganda, they are entitled to do so, but it


is an elementary democratic right that the citizens of this country should know who these people are. On 17th March, five months later, the £1 million target was reached. There was not very much good democratic money in that.
The position is obvious if we look at the expenditure of all political parties in the country at the present time. Look at the poster campaigns of the Tory Party. It has been estimated that in the two last local government elections, on their hoarding campaign alone, the Tory Party spent half as much as the total expenditure of the Labour Party headquarters in the 1945 election. The hoarding campaign which the Tory Party are running at the present time vastly exceeds anything that has been spent before in a comparable period in this country. Never has so much money been collected and expended by so few in so short a time.
I want to give a little evidence, in the few minutes at my disposal, about where this money is coming from, and how it is being collected. I can give a little evidence from the Midlands, which is the part of the country I represent. How do the Tory Party get their money in the Midlands? I have here photostat copies of two pages of the accounts of the Birmingham Unionist Association. Is this good democratic money? No. Everything is in terms of 25-guinea contributions by companies and firms in the City of Birmingham. I do not propose to give the names. How, in the Midlands, are the Tory Party getting their money? Here is a circular from Sir Francis Joseph, Baronet, from Federation House, Stoke-on-Trent, sent out to the industrialists in the Midlands. He talks of the Woolton Fund and goes on to say that they were united to raise money to fight the present crippling controls on industry by the Government. Then he says:
As a guide to you we are asking firms to contribute on the basis of ½ d. in the £ on the annual salary and wages account of the firm.
He encloses a circular sent by a body called the Midland Industrialists' Advisory Council, which, curiously enough, has the same address as the West Midlands Headquarters of the Conservative Party.
I have discussed the national issue and the regional issue; let me now come down to the local issue. What is happening in my own constituency of South-West Wolverhampton? The methods being used in that district are the same as in every district. How are they trying to get their funds? They do not rely on the doorstep appeal to the individual. They appeal to the shopkeepers, first of all, for subscriptions of £5 to £10 a time. They then circulate the business executives in the town and suggest subscriptions of between £10 and £100. They say this:
Many employers are basing their subscriptions on the number of people they employ. This method has the advantage of spreading evenly the support received from firms of varying sizes.
The annual subscription is worked out as follows:
1d. per week for every person employed by the subscriber.
I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite have some objection against contracting out, but the employees under this system have no opportunity either of contracting in or of contracting out, because their employers, over their heads, without consulting them, or the shareholders whose interests they are supposed to represent. are pouring funds into the coffers of one political party. So that is where Tory funds are coming from.
Then there is the National Union of Manufacturers, if I may give another illustration of a crypto-Tory organisation. Mr. W. Blackwell, the chairman of the Midland area of this union, has invited manufacturers in the Wolverhampton area to band together
in a united front against the tyrannies of a Socialist totalitarianism.
He goes on to say that
the union is not a political body, but that as industrialists they can approach the problems of the day politically unbiased.
Those are the methods by which these organisations are collecting their funds. We have evidence to show that sums as large as £100,000 at a time have come from big vested interests in this country to the Aims of Industry. They are entitled to pay the money, just as the Co-operative movement is entitled to pay money to the Labour Party. On the same basis, they should publish their accounts. We are not disputing the right


of big vested interests to contribute to a political party. We are saying that it is an elementary right of democracy that the citizens should know the forces behind the political parties before they go into this Election.
I appeal to the Government tonight to accept this Motion—[Interruption.]—and if the Tories do not publish their accounts, to take the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation, which the democracy of the United States of America has shown can be framed on practical lines.

9.16 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad that the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) will only have the brief period of my speech before he is put out of his agony and the great suffering which he must be undergoing in his doubt as to whether the Government will support the Motion. I should have thought that if we all approached this Motion with complete frankness, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) would not claim that his sole motive in moving it was an academic desire to have discussed where the line should be drawn as to the publicity to be given to anyone who gives financial support to a political cause.
I thought from the method of his speech that it might well be termed his final "Operation Mudlark," and that his hope was that the mud would outweigh and cover the preliminary larks with which he introduced it. I want to say one other thing, and here I am sure that I speak for the whole House. It was a joy to all of us, wherever we sit, to see and hear the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) back in his fighting form, hitting with that vigour and strength which have delighted all hon. Members of the House all the time he has been in it.
The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton tried to call us back to the terms of the Motion and the Amendment, and I want to make quite clear—whether the right hon. Member for Wakefield accepts it or not is a matter for him—why I am supporting our Amendment. I believe that if the accounts are to be given they must satisfy certain conditions. They must be fully informative; they must cover all the sums received for the general

purpose indicated; they must include services which are given to a cause but the payment for which is covered by a contract for service of the person giving them with some other organisation; and they should not be used, and should not be capable of being used, as a method of intimidation. In order to fulfil these qualities I say that it requires that the scope and nature of the accounts should be laid down in legislation. That is what the Amendment says. That is what I stand for and that is my answer to the challenge which the right hon. Member for Wakefield was good enough to put to me.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir. May I explain, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that I may have half an hour. We have only had two speeches from those who sit with me in the House and it is very difficult to develop the subject and give way as I like to do, when I can, for which I think hon. Members will give me credit. The right hon. Gentleman has given me half an hour and it is difficult enough to cover the subject in that time.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): All I asked for was 20 minutes, but if that embarrasses the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he can have a part of it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry. I shall of course, see that the right hon. Gentleman has that, but that makes my point a fair one.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield waxed indignant about the Labour Party accounts. What i say with regard to that is that if the choice is between no accounts and accounts as rendered by the Labour Party, the choice is between no accounts and a completely misleading set of figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I develop the point? What anyone would expect if they were told that the income of the Labour Party is £236,000 a year, is that, apart from a few odds and ends, that represented the financial support given to the Socialist movement in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what they would expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that it is totally


unconnected with reality when we are told—and there is no dispute about this—first, apart altogether from affiliation fees, that the sum of the political funds of the trade unions comes to £400,000. If one takes off the £113,000 of the affiliation fees, there is another £286,000 which is spent on the election expenses of candidates for Parliamentary—

Sir Richard Acland: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Baronet need not get so excited. I am coming to the point. If he will subside for a moment, and take it gently, he will get the point quite clearly. I am saying that we begin with £286,000 which is used for Parliamentary and local government expenses, for the maintenance of candidates and for other expenses connected with nomination.

Mr. Collick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me—

Sir D, Maxwell Fyfe: No, I cannot. The hon. Gentleman said that the matter was published, but the same does not apply to the general funds of the trade unions.

Mr. Keenan: Yes it does; it must do.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman were not so impatient he might gather what I am about to say. These funds do not show it. In no place can one see in aggregate how much of it is used for the production of pro-Socialist pamphlets which are paid for out of the general fund of the union. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In no place is it shown.

Mr. Tiffany: How do you know?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do know—because they are not covered by the political fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] No account shows the value in £ s. d. of the most valuable time paid for by trade unions and given by trade union officials as part of the job they have to do for Labour Party politics. The general fund of the trade unions pays for the journals of the various unions, which are also used as vehicles for Socialist

propaganda. If the hon. Member opposite who has been interrupting so loudly will consider that, let me give him one example, of the A.E.U. journal for November:
This brings us, as trade unionists, up against the hard facts. Beyond question, the Government is calling upon the organised working-class movement to co-operate in saving the revolution, though they do not call it that. The Labour Party has to win the 1950 Election.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Exactly. Nobody on earth can discover how much of trade unionists' money is devoted to Labour Party propaganda of that pattern. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is all in the accounts."] It is not in the accounts. Therefore, one has to consider that these sums are entirely unknown to the general public.
I was very interested when the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton mentioned the question of American law. I wonder if he wants that section of the American law introduced by which no Labour organisation is allowed to subscribe to political funds?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: That was wartime legislation only.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is still in force.

Mr. Hughes: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Well, we can look it up. If the hon. Member is right I will let him know, but that is how I understand it.
I take now the case of the funds of the Co-operative Movement. Again, I put it in this way. Nobody has disputed the statement of my hon. Friend as to the £100,000, which is based on 2§d. per member per year, which is paid by 1,003 out of 1,118 Co-operative societies to the Co-operative Union. The Cooperative Union is one of the constituent bodies, with the Labour Party and the T.U.C, of the National Council of Labour. With regard to the education—[Interruption]—I take it that hon. Members opposite are agreed about the £358,000, which the public learn is being devoted to education, but which we all know is devoted to political propaganda.

Mr. Daines: rose —

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: rose —

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am prepared to give way to the right hon. Member for Wakefield.

Mr. Dames: On a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not given way, although I think he was prepared to give way to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood).

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was giving way to the right hon. Member for Wakefield and I am quite prepared to do so.

Mr. Dailies: The statement made by the right hon. and learned Member is not true and he knows it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that the hon. Member should say that. I know he is a great authority in the movement, but he is not so great an authority as Mr. Brothers, who is the chairman of the National Association of Co-operative Education Committees. Mr. Brothers says:
It is not unfair to claim that the Movement made some contribution to the change in public opinion which brought about the return of a Labour Government in 1945. I suggest it is up to us as Co-operative educationalists to play our full part in aid of the Government with the determination to do all in our power to secure that the next General Election shall see it is returned to power again.
Why should I not believe Mr. Brothers?

Mr. Daines: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because I wrote to him precisely on this point. I wish to quote the speech he made—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made a statement in line with his previous speech that the £100,000 of the Co-operative Union is placed behind the National Council of Labour. That is untrue. The total sum in seven years is £1,500 and I have the figures here and challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went further and said that if the £100,000 was available to the Co-operative Movement it would be paid in dividends. I say that statement is misleading and that he knew it was misleading when he made it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has now got it off his chest. The hon. Member can say what he pleases. I have

given the House the result of my researches, most carefully made, and I have nothing to withdraw at all. I notice that the hon. Member did not say a word about the £358,000. He contradicted me and told me I was telling an untruth. I give him Mr. Brothers' words and he has not the decency to withdraw.
I put it to the right hon. Member for Wakefield whether the annua] account of the Labour Party at £236,000 fairly represents expenditure on behalf of the Socialist movement of £989,000.

Mr. Tiffany: No one has claimed that.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Oh, it does not. I thought the Motion applied to everyone. There is £236,000 income of Labour Party headquarters, £286,000 from the political funds, £18,000 affiliation fees to the Co-operative Party, £100,000 from the Council of the Co-operative Union and £358,000 Co-operative expenditure on education, making £989,000 in all.
I must say we have had many amusing interjections this evening, and I think the most amusing of all was when the right hon. Member for Wakefield, with these facts in mind, described himself and his colleagues as the poorer party and said he was proud of it. Now I understand why the right hon. Gentleman once called pounds, shillings and pence "meaningless symbols." I say that the accounts are valueless as a picture of the support for the Socialist cause without the figures I have mentioned. Of course I have not started on some of the outside bodies. I do not want to say too much about the "Daily Herald" whose shares are as to 51 pec cent. owned by the Labour Party, 'because on Monday the "Daily Herald" published an article which, in my view, raised its standard considerably and whose only fault was that it also published the face of the author.
Apart from that, I want to put this point to the hon. Gentlemen who have brought this Motion before the House. I say that to ask for the accounts of any organisation which has political action as one of its aims is really, when we come to consider it, quite out of the question. Let me take one matter which hon. Members of all parties will experience in a short time, if, indeed, they have not alreay experienced it. They will be asked by the Roman Catholic community in each division for their views on


Catholic schools. That, of course, is a political aim, a political matter on which they come to us to find out our views. It would be quite absurd, I think, to take voluntary organisations of that kind and to ask them to split up their accounts, to say how much it costs and how much of the priest's time was devoted to matters of that kind.
The same applies to the Spinsters' Union and to many political organisations the importance of which hon. Members with a shorter political experience than my own will realise as the years go on. What I say is that, with, regard to organisations of that kind, our electoral law is entirely sufficient because it directs and controls their expenditure to the two vital limits—one, that it must be at the time of the Election, and the other that it must, be directed to securing or promoting the return of a particular candidate.
I want to say one word on the matter which I put as my fourth point, and that is intimidation and oppression. I do not think hon. Members will deny this point—that one test of democracy is whether the free right constitutionally to form an Opposition is given in a country. It is a test which is generally accepted and which was accepted by all the nations of Western Europe at Strasbourg with no dissent from any one at any time. I put this point, and I ask hon. Members who have gone into the matter to consider it. Where you have a State which is already centralised and which is growing more centralised, and when you have 5½ million out of approximately 22 million—one quarter—of the workers in a State working in nationalised bodies closely related to the State, then the opportunity for intimidation becomes infinitely greater.
There is no one in any business who will not be threatened by the chance of losing work or of having his job threatened in one way or another. There are examples of employees of nationalised boards who have already been talked to because they have belonged to Conservative clubs. I say that that is a real danger and I do not agree with the suggestion that everyone who subscribes should, ipso facto, have his name given so that he may be approached, got at and intimidated in that way.

Mr. Byers: rose —

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot give way. I say it is contrary to the primary principles of democracy, as accepted by everyone, that it should necessarily be known that a man subscribes to an Opposition party.
I want to deal in a short time with one further point. The hon. Member for Hornchurch was good enough to give me notice of the fact that he would raise the question of the report which he mentioned. I am grateful for the politeness which he always shows when he quotes; he has shown it before when he quoted my speeches, and I thank him. I call his attention to the second paragraph to which he referred, paragraph 29 of the interim report of my committee, which says:
We agree … that the treasurer of the party should publish an annual financial statement, the exact form to be settled after consultation with the chairman and the party officers of the National Union and the area chairmen.
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman followed it up. That was the interim report of my committee, and the report was passed by the council of our party in July. In paragraph 4 of our final report we took up that point and explained the methods of publication which we suggested. There were two methods. Perhaps I may summarise them. It is a published document and the hon. Gentleman can get it. There were two methods suggested. The first method is to go from the consultative committee to the finance committee and from there, I suggested, to the executive of the party, and from the executive to the council, a body of some 2,000 people who meet in public. The second method was through the area treasurers to the chairmen and treasurers of divisions, who are 1,250 people. So that we follow it up.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was passed by the body of the party only in July, and it is still in the stage of implementation. When one makes changes of that kind—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can sneer if they like. I was chairman of the committee. When one makes changes of that kind it takes some time to put them into operation.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why oppose the Motion?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman asks why I am opposing it. I will put my reasons. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to agree, but I am asking hon.
Gentlemen to consider them as being the reasons which seem valid to me. I do not think a bald Motion in this form deals with the situation. I say we have to deal with these points—truth, accuracy, and fairness of result in presenting the accounts of a political movement. I say in the second place we must in the modern centralised State guard against intimidation.
I want only to say this in answer to the point which the hon. Gentleman was good
enough to raise. The essence of the Report which bears my name—I am sure he has read it—is to urge on my party the democratisation of financial contribution. It urges on them not only to pay for the constituency expenses, not only to pay all the election expenses of a candidate, but to confine the candidate's payment to £25 and £50 for a Member—which is much less than the Labour Party's, whose figure is £250. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, I am right. I put that forward because I believe that the healthy way in which to run a party is to get the people who work with it to pay for their politics themselves.
I am sorry if I have taken too long. I have tried to put the matter in perspective.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a categorical answer to the challenge I put to him? Yes or no?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought I had. Will the' right hon. Gentleman repeat it? I have tried to answer it. Let him repeat the challenge and I shall try to answer it.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not want to waste the time of the House. My challenge was perfectly clear to hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was it? "] I said that if the Tory Party will publish as much as we publish, we will then from that point go on to publish anything they like, that they will—with equal publication on both sides.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I had forgotten that part of his speech, and I will answer it quite flatly now. I will not agree to the publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Be fair; I did not interrupt

the right hon. Gentleman. I will not agree to the publication of accounts, except on conditions that meet the points I have made, and are made in this Amendment. But I will do this: On behalf of my party, and on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, I am prepared at once to enter into a conference, if you, Mr. Speaker, would be good enough to be chairman, to consider these points, to discuss them, and in that way to decide what is the proper basis on which to proceed. In that sense I support this Motion.

9.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had the advantage of four speeches from the other side—from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). Of them all I can say that the only one I have understood is that of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton.
We have had a Debate which those of us who can recollect the days in the old House, in the earlier years of this century, find strangely reminiscent. We had a very brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in opening this Debate, and the challenges that were thrown out by him have not been answered. We have now had a speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who tells us that he supports the Amendment, but does not say what he will do if the Amendment should be defeated and the Motion is then put as a main Question unamended.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall vote against it.

Mr. Ede: Now we know that the principle of publication of accounts is opposed by the Opposition. We have had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a speech with his usual clarity, lucidity and analytical skill—

Lord John Hope: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said he did not understand it.

Mr. Ede: —which was devoted entirely to the Committee points that might be raised if legislation were introduced.
On all those we shall be.quite willing to consider the matter when we reach that stage. But the issue submitted to the House is whether it is advantageous to the public interest that the funds of political parties and of organisations having political aims, should be publicised in the way that at the moment the funds of two of the great political parties are publicised.
It is quite clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has found no great difficulty in ascertaining what he regards as the sources of the funds of the Labour Party. He has added them up, but I shall not say that I have checked the arithmetic and would mark the sum correct at the end: he may have under-estimated, and he may have over-estimated. At any rate, all those funds to which he has alluded are published, and most of them are audited by public auditors. What he made out to be the largest sum is, in fact, subject to the checking of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and people who do not make complete and accurate returns pre liable to heavy penalties under the laws which that officer administers if there are any discrepancies in the accounts.
It may be, of course, that one cannot expect the Tory Party to be regarded as a friendly society, and that for that reason they are not willing that their funds should come under the same supervision. I should be quite willing myself to see the kind of work that would be involved if this sort of Motion were implemented handed over to the Registrar of the Friendly Societies. Let him be the person who would have the duty of auditing these accounts and making quite certain that they were accurate and represented what should be known to the public. Clearly it is right that the electors should know, in the great play of economic forces that now goes on in this country, who is behind a particular policy that is being advocated, and who is willing to lend his support to the policy that has been announced.
When one is asked to accept the view that the weaker of the two organisations is the Labour Party, I am bound to say that I do not accept the view that the weaker of the two organisations is the Conservative Party. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman said ' Labour

Party'."] I am sorry if I made a slip, but I am trying to hurry because I gave a considerable part of my time to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not accept that point of view. What I do say is that the public has a right to know what are the forces aligned behind a political party, whether weak or strong. If I am asked to accept from the hon. Member for Oxford that it would be better for the Conservative Party if the Aims of Industry and the Economic League were under the Conservative wing, our view is that it would be better that the country should know whether or not the Conservative Party are under the wing of the Aims of Industry and the. Economic League.
I cannot imagine that the hon. Member for Canterbury really believes that the object of the subscribers to the Economic League is to increase the strength of the Labour Party in the country and to increase the number of Labour Members in this House. He told us that throughout the 30 years of its existence it had never been associated with a political party. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have probably seen the League at work in industrial districts, and I would not insult them by suggesting that they would need me to answer on that point the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury.
The Economic League closes down during the Election. After all, political parties close down during the Election. The first thing that has happened in every constituency with which I have been connected in every General Election since 1892 has been that the various political parties met and dissolved for the period of the Election—so that does not prove that it is a non-political body.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby made some comments about the expenditure of the Co-operative Union. The Co-operative Union publishes its expenses. Anyone who writes to the headquarters of the Union at Manchester can obtain a copy of the financial statement, whether he is a member of the Union or not. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it ought to be added to the total Labour Party funds. Very well, if that is the requirement of the law, that will have to be done. At the moment there is no concealment, and everyone who wants to do


so can check what is being spent by that body. I am bound to say that I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply about the resolution of this committee was a little disingenuous. Paragraph 28 reads:
We agree with the principal finding of Committee A, which is that readiness to contribute towards the central fund of the party will only grow in proportion as the genuineness and urgency of the need are made plain. In the past no information about the expenditure, or income, or requirements of the centre have been available to responsible constituency officers, Members of Parliament, candidates, or ordinary members of the party. The advantages of secrecy are outweighed by the disadvantages of failing to tell Conservative supporters frankly what bills they must foot if they want the country properly governed.
I am sure that they were concerned not about making the funds public, but merely to deal with that difficulty which arises in all political parties, jealousy of the constituency organisation on how the money that goes to the centre is spent.

Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman's party has that difficulty then?

Mr. Ede: Everyone does, and I have even known it to happen in the case of the wards. I am not trying to conceal any of the difficulties, which I am sure we all encounter.
That is all very well, but I recollect the shock that occurred in the town where I reside when Lord Beaverbrook wrote to the Epsom Divisional Conservative Association to say that he was going to withdraw his annual subscription of £100. I gather that this was because the recently-adopted candidate had formerly been associated with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour. I am quite sure that it came as a shock to a good many people in the Epsom Division that

a subscription as large as £100 had been paid by the noble Lord. The noble Lord was quite frank; he did not like the policy, or it may be the personality—although I cannot understand why he did not like the personality—the association had adopted, and he openly said it. I cannot think that there are many people who subscribe £100 who are going to be frightened of what the Labour Party are going to do to them if their names are revealed.

That, again, is a Committee point—the exact minimum subscriptions to be shown separately. What I do say is that it is highly desirable in the interests of clean Government in this country, that it should be clearly known who are the people, who are the great organisations, the medium-size organisations and even the small organisations, behind the policies that different political parties are advocating. I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of the country that they should be open to the suspicion that all too often in these days attaches to some of these organisations. I have a letter here from a young lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, it is by no means the first—which says:
The Luton office of 'Aims of Industry is supposed to be 48, Guildford Street, Luton. but this happens to be the side entrance to 58, Bute Street, a Tory office. A request for the telephone number of ' Aims of Industry' elicits the statement from directory inquiries that this organisation is not known to them. However, I know that it is possible to obtain them by ringing Luton 4500, which is the same number as the Tory Office.

I suggest that it is highly desirable that this Motion should be carried tonight.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 214.

Division No. 309.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Fyfe, Rt, Hon Sir D. P M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gage, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
De la Bere, R.
Gammans, L. D.


Bennett, Sir, P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Dodds-Parker, A. D
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G- Lloyd (P'ke)


Bower, N.
Donner, P. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Gridley, Sir A.


Bromley-Davenport, U.-Col. W.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Grimston, R. V.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Butcher, H. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Butler, Rt. Hn Ft A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Carson, E.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Challen, C.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Channon, H.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)




Hope, Lord J
Moore, Ll.-Col. Sir T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Hurd, A
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Hutchison, Col. J. R: (Glasgow, C)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Smithers, Sir W.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Nicholson, G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stoddart'Scott, Col. M.


Keeling, E. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Herelord)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Linstead, H. N.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


McFarlane, C. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Manningham-Buller, R. E
Ropner, Col. L.



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sanderson, Sir F.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Maude, J. C
Savory, Prof. D. L.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Follick, M.
Messer, P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gartskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C S
Mitchison, G. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr H. B.


Austin, H. Lewis.
Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs, B.
Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Naylor, T. E.


Baird, J.
Greenwood, fit. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bartlett, V.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Barton, C.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Battley, J. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bechervaise, A. £
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
O'Brien, T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gunter, R. J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A
Guy, W. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Blylon, W. R.
Hale, Leslie
Orbach, M.


Bowden, H. W
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Paget, R. T.


Bowen, R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Braddock, T. (Mitchant)
Hastings, Dr. Somervill.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bramarl, E. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Hobson, C. R
Pannell, T. C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushciiffe)


Burden, T. W.
Houghlon, Douglas
Paton, J (Norwich)


Byers, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)
Pearson, A.


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Peart, T. F.


Carmichael, James
Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Price, M. Philips


Cobb, F. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Collick, P.
Jenkins, R, H.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Randall, H. E


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ranger, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reeves, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Edward (Bursiem)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kirby, B. V.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies; Haydn (St Pancras, S W)
Leslie, J. R.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, N. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, H, J.
Levy, B. W.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sargood, R.


Donovan, T.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Segal, Dr. S.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGovern, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mack, J. D.
Sharp, Granville.


Dumpleton C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Eds, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Evans, John (Ogm'ore)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Ewart, R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Farthing, W. J..
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Field, Capt. W. J
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Snow, J W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R J.
Sorensen, R W







Soskiee, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Vernon, Maj. W F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S


Symonds, A. L.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Warbey, W. N.
Voung, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Weitzman, D.



Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Binns and


Tiffany, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton.


Tolley, L
Wigg, George

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 104.

Division No. 310.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Gibson, C. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Niehol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Attewell, H. C.
Gooch, E. G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Austin, H. Lewis
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
O'Brien, T.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Oldfield, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss A
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Orbach, M.


Baird, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paget, R. T.


Bartlett, V.
Gunter, R. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Barton, C.
Guy, W. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Battley, J. R.
Hale, Leslie.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Panned, T. C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J (Norwich)


Bowden, H. W
Hobson, C. R..
Pearson, A.


Bowen. R.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Braddock, T. (Milcham)
Horabin, T. L.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Bramall, E. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Price, M. Philips


Brown, T. J- (Ince)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Proctor, W. T.


Burden, T. W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pursey, Comdr, H.


Byers, Frank
Jay, D. P T.
Randall, H. E.


Callaghan, James
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.


Carmichael, James
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reeves, J.


Castle, Mrs. B A
Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Colliok, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Collindridge, F.
Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Corbet, Mrs, F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)
Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Crossman, R. H. S
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Daines, P.
Leslie, J. R.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lever, N. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Levy, B. W.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S W)
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Mack, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Donovan, T.
McLeavy, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Oriberg, T. E. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romlord)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dumplelon, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sorensen. R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Ewart, R.
Messer, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Farthing, W. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Symonds, A. L.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Follick, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Ganley, Mrs. Cc S.
Moyle, A
Thomas, John R. (Dover)




Thorneycrott, Harry (Clayton)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Tiffany, S.
Warbey, W. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Tolley, L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W.


Turner-Samuels, M
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, L
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Vernon, Maj W. F.
Wigg, George
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Viant, S P.
Wilkins, W. A.



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, Rt Hon T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Binns and Lieut.-Colonel Lipton.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathooat
Gridley, Sir A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C (Wells)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bower, N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Hogg, Hon Q
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Lord, J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hurd, A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Channon, H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashlord)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bare, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley).


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCorquodale,[...]. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
MoFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maude, J. C.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D P M
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.



Gammans, L. D.
Nicholson. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


George. Maj. Rt. Hn G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nutting, Anthony



Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House, political parties, and all other organisations having political action as one of their aims, should publish annually full and adequate statements of their accounts.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL

Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Clause 3. —(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS RESPECTS THE NEW GARDENS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4. line 31, at end, insert:
Provided that if the Minister considers that it would be preferable to re-erect the said fountain on a site not being a site within either of the said gardens, and if the Minister has laid before each House of Parliament a paper stating his proposal and the reasons therefor, and thereafter a Resolution of each House of Parliament is passed approving the Minister's proposal, the said fountain shall be re-erected on the site so agreed.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am sorry that as the result of a misunderstanding on my part the Amendment which I moved last night, in so far as it related to a negative as against an affirmative Resolution in both Houses, went contrary to an agreement which had been arrived at in another place. The Amendment which is now before the House, while retaining to the Minister the right of the initiative in this matter, rectifies the error that I then made. Because it does so, I have great pleasure in moving this Motion.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I can hardly express my surprise at the events that have transpired. We are faced now with a Lords Amendment, which none of us has seen in print—because I


understand it was passed some time this afternoon—and which we have to consider in manuscript. What appears to have happened is that at 5 p.m. on Tuesday last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, supported by the Leader of the Government in another place, the Lord Privy Seal, accepted an Amendment that the future site of the memorial fountain should be decided by affirmative Resolution procedure. At some time before this House rose at 9.3 p.m. on the same night—that is, four hours and three minutes later—the right hon. Gentleman had tabled an Amendment to disagree with what his Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal had accepted in another place.
We really must have something more by way of explanation from the right hon Gentleman of how it comes about that he, as Minister, tables an Amendment in this House to disagree with what his Parliamentary Secretary has accepted in another place within two or three hours of that agreement having been reached. I think it was the late Tim Healy who said "Under-Secretaries never resign; they wait till they are fired." In this case it does not seem to be for the Parliamentary Secretary to resign. The agreement which he accepted is now being endorsed, but only after his own Minister has moved that this House disagree with it, and after his Minister has defended his position in the House of Commons and forced this House to a vote last night upon this very issue in exactly the opposite sense to that in which the Minister is now advising the House.
We really must have more explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of this disagreement between himself and his Parliamentary Secretary, and about the difference between himself and the Lord Privy Seal. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should now be accepting the Amendment moved today in another place and accepted by his own Government. After all, he disagreed with what his own Friends had accepted in the

House of Lords on Tuesday, so I am completely at a loss to understand why he should now be accepting what his own Friends and assistants have advocated in the House of Lords today.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I think the explanation of the mystery that has puzzled my right hon. Friend may be that the Minister has not yet had time to draft a note of disagreement as he did at an earlier stage. What I venture to call the scandal of what has happened goes further than the Minister's disagreement with what happened on Tuesday in the Lords and the Minister's expression of such disagreement that same evening, because the point was expressly brought to his notice last night by my right hon. Friend and by me. We pointed out the express agreement reached in another place by the noble Lord who leads the Government in that House, and by the right hon. Gentleman's own Parliamentary Secretary. Nevertheless, a great deal of time was taken, a Division was forced, and the important business that was to follow was delayed. For all those things the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to give the slightest explanation. It is really not too much to describe that as a complete scandal, and the only reason why it is accepted as completely normal by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that scandalous behaviour has become their normal conduct.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) delved into what happened on Tuesday evening. We should like, if not for enlightenment, at any rate for relaxation, to know what happened this morning. Who sent for whom at the Ministry of Works? The usual thing is that the headmaster sends for the junior master to administer a rebuke. Is that what happened this morning, or was the headmaster rebuked by the junior master?

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION SERVICE (EXTENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.25 p.m.

Dr. Broughton: The large number of Questions relating to television which have appeared on the Order Paper in recent months serves as an indication of the keen interest of hon. Members in this subject and reflects the interest of people throughout the country. I have heard it said that television is only a luxury for the rich; and it is certainly true that the present price of receiving sets is beyond the means of most people. With the expansion of broadcasting, however, more and more sets will be needed by clubs as well as by individuals and a demand should be created, stimulating to the industry and enabling it to put on to the market better and cheaper sets.
Television is a new development in broadcasting, and people wish to keep abreast of modern progress. There are some who say that the present lack of television in most parts of the country is deplorable and that they are disappointed that we have no more than the London station broadcasting and the Sutton Coldfield station just completed. On the other hand, the idea of a nationwide television service has its opponents. Some are concerned about the effects on people's eyesight, others are uneasy lest housewives watching the screen in a darkened room neglect to darn their husbands' socks and schoolchildren lay aside their homework. Nevertheless, many people eagerly await the day when television will become available in clubs and homes throughout the country, to provide entertainment and instruction.
The cost of building television stations is a matter for careful consideration in these days of economic difficulty, and I should like my hon. Friend to say something about this when he replies. If the choice lay between constructing broadcasting stations and building houses for those in need, the decision would definitely go in favour of houses; but the answer is not such a simple one as that. To build houses we must import materials from abroad. To pay for those imports we must export goods which people over-

seas will accept, and I see no reason why we should not be able to establish a valuable overseas trade in television transmitting and receiving equipment to help to pay for food, raw materials, building materials and other imports which we need.
We have scientists and technicians with knowledge and vision, businessmen with energy and enterprise and workers with skill, industry and intelligence. But a prerequisite of a prosperous overseas trade is a flourishing home market. The first step is to popularise television at home, for which a vast expansion of broadcasting is required.
As I have said, I think many people are eager to have television. They want to see plays, sporting events and events of national importance. They hope, as time goes on, to be able to see something of what is happening in other countries, and they foresee in the future development of international television, a better understanding between nations. Television offers prospects stimulating to imagination and initiative and appealing to those who wish to explore new fields of adventure. It places on the Government an important and pressing responsibility. We want to see this country of ours leading the world in television.
We are glad to know that this weekend, a few hours from now, Sutton Cold-field station will begin to operate. I should be interested to know the detailed results of the trials of that station. Reception, I understand, has been good over a wide area, including some parts of Yorkshire. Will this be maintained and will the results in any way affect the plans previously made for the Holme Moss station? I should be interested to learn from my hon. Friend all that I can about Sutton Coldfield, about Holme Moss and about the further spread of television throughout the country.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. William Paling: I rise because of the interest displayed in the Midlands, particularly in Yorkshire,. in the opening of the new Sutton Cold-field television station on Saturday. For some days now there has been excitement in Yorkshire, especially in the areas from which my hon. Friend and I come, about the excellent results that have arisen from the test trials at Sutton Cold-field. I have been looking at a remark-


able photograph, taken last Sunday during a test, of an announcer from the television station. It is making people in the area wonder whether Yorkshire can hope for reasonably good results from the station to be opened officially tomorrow.
One or two points arise in regard to this new station which are giving some hope to many thousands of homes in the outer fringes of the area covered by Sutton Coldfield station. We read in the Press that the new station has twice the visual strength and something like four times the strength of tone of Alexandra Palace. It is stated that Sutton Coldfield has a range of something like 65 miles, which I believe is much more than the London station. The results we have had in Yorkshire have been so good that people are contemplating getting sets—if they can get them—while the getting is good.
Because of this, I should like to know how far my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General can help us. There are a number of questions, such as the correct type of aerial and lead-in, and interference, about which I want my hon. Friend's Department, if they can, to give the people on the outer fringes of the area some information in understandable terms. Though the local radio dealers and the local Press are asking people to go cautiously in the purchase of television sets, we all know that with a new set-up like this, in an industrial area, people are anxious to have, if they can, a television set that will give them extra entertainment. Can my hon. Friend do anything in the way of giving us a radius of really good reception without interference from Sutton Coldfield?
Another point that is worrying many people—and I have received many questions about this which I have tried to answer as best I could—is whether the receiving sets purchased now will be suitable for the new Holme Moss station when that is erected. There is much misunderstanding on this point. I think it should be made well known whether sets bought to receive from the Sutton Coldfield station will be suitable for the new Holme Moss station when it is ready for action. Some people are contemplating buying television sets and are now wondering whether those sets are unlikely to be suitable for receiving

the new Holme Moss station, or whether they can be easily converted and used for the new station.
Another point is that if, as seems likely, there is all this power in the new Sutton Coldfield station, there is a feeling that there will be a much wider range from this station than has been anticipated. If that be so, will that interfere with the building of the Holme Moss station; will it even jeopardise the building of that station? There are other snags. If my hon. Friend can persuade his Department to give people in the fringe areas enlightenment on all the problems which arise, and on the snags which they are likely to come up against, he will be doing a public service and the public will appreciate the advice.

10.37 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: The original television plan contemplated covering 80 per cent. of the homes in these islands. Since then tremendous development has taken place in America, such as development of methods of distributing the television waves by wire, and other things. It should now be possible to do better than cover 80 per cent. of the homes. My first question is whether there is any plan, or any committee whose job it is, to see whether a better distribution than 80 per cent. can now be contemplated.
As I have to be brief, I will put my speech into two or three questions. Holme Moss is on the eastern side of the Pennines. The television wave is a very high-frequency wave and behaves rather like light. It does not go round corners. Only when there is a "fluke" do you get distant reception. Normally reception is to the horizon line, which may be 40 or 50 miles distant, depending on the height of the masts. That is why the circulation is limited. Better circulation can be obtained only by having more stations. Those stations need not be more powerful. Holme Moss cannot be expected to carry over the Pennines and, coming down on the other side, to serve north-west England. Places like Barrow-in-Furness, Ulverstone, Morecambe, Lancaster, Preston and other places in and near the Lake District will, I suspect, be without television unless a new plan is brought into being.
Finally, television is so costly that I cannot believe it can be paid for out of


the taxes which are levied by way of licences, and I would ask, therefore, whether there is any authority now considering the sponsoring of these programmes. I would remind the House that while we have all set our faces against sponsored programmes on the ordinary radio, two or three powerful and influential committees in this House have raised the question whether television can be adequate in this country without sponsoring.

10.39 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to ask a short question, and will delay the House for only a minute or so. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman said that the extension of Holme Moss is not affected by the cuts in capital expenditure made so far, but he could not give an assurance as regards expenditure in later years upon the remainder of the plan. I ask him to "come clean"—

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I "came clean" yesterday when I answered the question.

Colonel Hutchison: I do not want to give any offence by my phraseology. Therefore, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to explain clearly exactly what is happening about the rest of the plan. He says that he cannot give any assurance about the expenditure in later years. But the economy cuts are already known—or is it that there are more, and that this finance is still in the melting pot? Let the House know whether the plan outlined by the Lord President of the Council still holds good; or is it still in the melting pot? When will the rest of the plan take effect?

10.41 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) because it was indicative of the general interest in television on all sides of the House. He has asked many questions and I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to answer them; but first let me give a broad outline of the programme. In other words, I shall be "coming clean" as the hon. Member opposite phrased it.
The programme is for five high-powered stations; Alexandra Park is in operation, and covers a population of 12

million; Sutton Coldfield is being opened by my right hon. Friend on 17th December, and will cater for 6 million of our population. By the middle of 1951 it is hoped that the Holme Moss station in Yorkshire will be completed. The capital investment for the Holme Moss station is approved, and construction will commence early next year. Then it is contemplated that there will be a fourth high-powered station for Scotland, and one for Wales and the Bristol Channel area. Besides these high-powered stations, it is contemplated that there will be five low-powered stations—Tyneside, Southampton, Northern Ireland, Aberdeen and Plymouth. I cannot say when the station for Scotland or South Wales will be commenced.
The Government have not yet decided the amount of capital investment for the 1951 programme for television. That, I think, is a clear, definite, and specific statement, made without any equivocation at all. Hon. Members will realise that we cannot come out of a war—the sort of war we experienced for six years—and immediately put all our energies into the provision of television. There are things far more pressing than that; there is capital investment in the modernisation of the railways, the cotton industry, and the woollen industry, and we cannot give top priority in capital investment to television. But the Government have indicated their desire to go ahead with television, and I should like to repeat to the House what I said in the Debate on 20th July last on this subject, that we shall go ahead with the extension of television in Britain, having regard to the economic well-being of our country.
As for the specific questions which have been asked tonight, I would say first that we have, I think, a very flourishing home market. There were at the end of October, 188,350 television licences, which represents an increase of over 100 per cent. since 1st January last. That, I think, proves there is a very good demand for television. So far as the Sutton Coldfield station is concerned, I am asked what is the range; its range is over a radius of 50 miles, and we cannot say more than that. Although reception is possible in Yorkshire at a greater distance than 50 miles, the Post Office and the B.B.C. cannot guarantee clear reception beyond 50 miles.
The radius of reception depends on many things. It depends on the topography of the country between the sending station and the receiving station. It sometimes depends on the extent of interference and sometimes even on climatic conditions. Therefore, I cannot give any guarantee that over and above 50 miles radius, there will be good reception. Of course, we have, more or less, I must admit, got to experiment, but we are taking the figure of 50 miles as the area in which clear reception will be available to those who have television sets.
On the question whether the sets available in London will be able to be used for Sutton Coldfield and those for Sutton Coldfield will be able to be used for Holme Moss, frankly, I cannot give that assurance. There are sets where it is possible to change the frequency, but there are not many, and it is a problem that the industry, in conjunction with the Television Advisory Committee, have to face. Otherwise, we shall have a situation where sets have to be made available for specific stations. In America there are sets on the market in which it is possible to change the frequency. There are some in Great Britain, too, but nevertheless, it is very important that the public should know that the sets they buy will receive the specific station in whose area they are.
In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), I think I can even give him a little good news tonight.

Colonel Hutchison: Good.

Mr. Hobson: It is not very often I am in that happy position. When we know what the 1951 programme is going to be, and as yet we do not, and if there is to be capital investment for television, Scotland will be the next station. That does not mean—and I do not notice any Welsh Members present—that Wales will not receive television. It will be our earnest endeavour to see that the Scottish station and the Welsh station proceed concurrently, and I think that is a very happy solution and one which shows foresight on the part of both my right hon. Friend and the B.B.C.
We hear a lot of talk with regard to exports. One would assume that we have not got a healthy home market here. We

have a very healthy home market. There are five countries, I think, where there are television programmes—the U.S.A., Great Britain, Russia, Holland, and France—but television in the last-named countries is on a much smaller scale than in Great Britain. The position is that the industry cannot export television sets for the reception of television until there are transmitters in the countries concerned. There is nothing to preclude the television industry, if it wants to, from going into the dollar area now and selling television sets, provided those sets will take in the lineage and definition of those countries.
As far as Europe is concerned, the lineage by which television is to be transmitted has not yet been finally declared. For instance France is experimenting on 425 lines and 819 lines; the Dutch on 625 lines. In the U.S.A., 425 lines are used. But the fact is there are no general television services in those European countries I have mentioned and we cannot export the sets until such time as there are transmitters. There is nothing to prevent the British industry from exporting transmitters to those countries. Then we hope with competitive costs to be able to get into those markets. It is a little unkind to say the Government are neglecting the export trade. It is not a question for this Government to tell those countries that they have got to have British television sets. It is for those countries themselves to decide when they are going to have television and on what lineage. Anything which His Majesty's Government can do to help the export trade they are only too happy to do. There was an international television exhibition in Milan this year, but only two British firms showed any exhibits. That does not seem to me to be very enterprising on the part of private enterprise.

Sir I. Fraser: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us about Lancashire. There are more people living in Lancashire than in Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Hobson: As a Yorkshireman, I do not want to enter into a "battle of the roses," but I wish to deal with the salient points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen in this Debate and the question of the export trade is an important one.
To come to Holme Moss, this station will cover the Manchester area, where


there is a teeming population. I believe there are more people within ten miles of Piccadilly, Manchester, than there are within ten miles of Piccadilly, London. The north-western area of Lancashire, a region I know well, is more than 50 miles from Holme Moss and is a difficult area to cover by television, because of the peculiar topographical nature of the country. I cannot therefore give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman is seeking, and as far as Holme Moss is concerned, I have to answer in the negative. Although it might be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. William Paling) suggests, to receive a television programme at a greater distance than 50 miles, I think I have answered the question which the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised.
There are one or two other matters with which I want to deal. There seems to be an idea that there is delay on the part of the Post Office in approving television sites. That is not true. The Post Office has always been in the forefront in the matter of the extension of television. Sites were approved and we decided early on what lineage and definition we should operate in Great Britain—405, and we gave that assurance to the trade. We have even endeavoured to introduce legislation to deal with the question of interference, which is an important and real problem so far as television is concerned. I can only hope

when the regulations are laid before this House we shall be able to deal with certain types of industrial interference.
In the London area people with television sets will have noticed that sometimes when a motorcar passes while they are watching a television programme there will be a blur on the screen caused by an emission of electro-magnetic energy. The same is true of diathermy. This problem causes difficulty to the new science of television, and we have to find ways and means of dealing with it. It is to the credit of the Government and the Post Office that we were able to bring forward legislation to deal with this nuisance.
It is argued that private enterprise could have erected these stations more quickly. Private enterprise does erect the stations at the present time; but like a public corporation, like the Government, like private firms, they have to be granted permission for the capital investment to expend on the particular job, which in this case would be television. There was also a suggestion that temporary stations could have been erected more rapidly. All I can say is that this is very doubtful indeed. In the next year there is hope of extending the television programme by one half hour and to have a Children's Hour.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.